Term limits: an antidote to federal red ink?

• Author: Moore, Stephen

OVER THE PAST five years, the term-limits movement has swept through the states with stunningly solid public support. The movement has become a broad-based, grassroots assault against business as usual in Washington, state capitals, and city halls. Since 1990, when they first appeared on the ballot in Oklahoma, Colorado, and California, term limits have been approved overwhelmingly by voters virtually everywhere they have been tested. The public is imposing term limits on mayors, city council members, state legislators, and, most controversial of all, their Congressional delegations. To date, 22 states have approved term limits for members of Congress. If the courts do not stand in the way, it is a realistic possibility that, within the next five years, the entire U.S. Congress will be term-limited.

Some opponents charge that such limits are merely a cosmetic political reform--that only the faces in Congress would change, not the policy outcomes. They also claim that Congress would lose the services of its "best" legislators if term limits were imposed.

Supporters counter that such limits would lead to different and better policy outcomes. That might be true for two reasons. First and foremost, they point out, term limits substantially would reduce the adverse selection bias of those who run for Congress in the first place. Today, it is argued, the political system by and large attracts to public office people who want to become career politicians. For those who might wish to serve in Congress for a short time, the initial investment to win a House or Senate seat is prohibitive. That expense is not only the huge monetary cost of running a successful campaign against an incumbent, but also the years required to have any influence on the policymaking process in Washington, thanks to the seniority system. The adverse selection bias means that only people willing to serve many years in politics are likely to run for office at all.

With term limits, however, candidates might be attracted who were more representative of the American public at large-both in their views on government's role and their professional backgrounds. In other words, the nation might get a higher caliber Congress. Before the imposition of term limits, many members of the California legislature listed their occupation as "full-time legislator." Now, that state's elections are attracting teachers, businessmen, nurses, and workers from a wide variety of occupations.

The second argument for term limits is that, even if there were no improvement in the quality of the people initially running for office, just the process of limiting elected officials' time served in Washington would have an impact on voting behavior. It seems that the longer elected officials serve in Congress, the more removed from the wishes of the voters, more influenced by lobbyists and special interests, and the less fiscally responsible they become. In 1994, former Democratic Congressman and now Delaware Governor Thomas Carper summarized that effect: "Once you're there [in Congress], you tend to forget who is the servant and who is being served."

Political scientist James L. Payne has...