Congressional Terms Limits— A Cure Even Worse Than The Ailment?

State Legislatures With Term Limits Have All Gotten Worse

Term limits don't fix this

Progressives are pushing for terms limits on Supreme Court justices and MAGAts don’t accept the fact that this is Trump’s final term. Meanwhile conservatives, with Trump’s encouragement, are pushing for congressional term limits. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for example, a former Member of Congress, released a statement last month saying “We need term limits for members of Congress. Florida has already certified a proposed amendment under Article V of the Constitution and other states are poised to follow suit. At the invitation of the U.S. Term Limits organization, I traveled today to encourage other state legislators to follow Florida’s lead and pass a resolution to call for a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits. We will never turn our country around if we don’t change the incentives in DC. Term limits are supported by huge majorities of Americans— it’s time to make it happen.”

North Carolina’s legislature voted to sign on last month joining GOP-controlled legislatures in Alabama, Missouri, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Louisiana. 

The proposal is overwhelmingly popular with the public, as much as 86% with Republicans, 84% with independents and 80% with Democrats! People hate Congress and want to punish the members; that’s why it’s so popular. But is it the right idea? It doesn’t mean it’s the best way to go but most Americans believe term limits would reduce corruption and even revitalize Congress. However, while the proposal may sound like a straightforward solution to entrenched political power, the experiences of states that have already enacted legislative term limits suggest a troubling side effect: increased dominance by lobbyists and special interest groups, making matters much worse, not better.

True, limiting terms prevents lawmakers from becoming too entrenched and minimizes opportunities for inevitable unethical behavior tied to long-term relationships with donors and lobbyists. Term limits— frequent turnover— allows for a steady influx of new leaders who, at least in theory, may bring innovative solutions to entrenched problems. A bonus is that incumbent advantage— name recognition and fundraising networks, making it difficult for challengers to compete—will level the electoral playing field, again, in theory. In fact many proponents say they envision a return to a system where representatives view public service as a temporary duty rather than a lifelong career, leading to citizen congresses rather than congresses dominated by careerists. There isn’t one single state legislature where this has proven to be the case. 

Is the loss of institutional knowledge, the case made against term limits, real? Experienced legislators understand complex policy issues, procedural rules, and negotiations. It’s true that frequent turnover could result in a less effective Congress. However, with lawmakers spending less time in office, lobbyists, professional staffers and bureaucrats, none of whom are elected or accountable, gain disproportionate influence. In fact, speaking of accountability, outgoing lawmakers may feel less pressure to represent their constituents' interests, knowing they won’t face reelection.

The worst problem with term limits is that the legislators who are cycled out due to term limits often take with them years of expertise, leaving inexperienced replacements to navigate the complexities of governance and this creates a vacuum that lobbyists are more than willing to fill. Many members of Congress may be self-serving, corrupt and venal, but, basically, all lobbyists are. Here in California, where term limits were enacted in 1990, lawmakers quickly became reliant on lobbyists for policy advice, bill drafting, and even talking points. Without the institutional memory of seasoned legislators, newly elected officials leaned heavily on external groups to shape their agendas. Similarly, in Michigan, after term limits were implemented in 1992, a wave of inexperienced lawmakers entered the legislature, giving lobbyists unprecedented influence.

Another unintended consequence of term limits is the acceleration of the revolving door between politics and lobbying. Legislators who are forced out of office often transition into lobbying roles, leveraging their personal relationships and insider knowledge to influence their successors. This dynamic has already played out in several states, including Arkansas and Ohio, where former lawmakers became high-paid lobbyists, perpetuating cycles of influence and accelerated corruption rather than ending them.

Those pushing hardest for congressional term limits know that with limited time in office, term-limited legislators are unable to develop complex legislation on their own. Instead, they turn to groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which provides pre-drafted bills designed to benefit corporate interests. In states like Florida and Arizona, ALEC has successfully pushed its agenda through inexperienced lawmakers, leading to laws that prioritize business profits over public welfare. If term limits were implemented at the federal level, similar organizations would likely expand their influence, creating a system where unelected actors write the laws that govern the nation.

While the concept of congressional term limits is rooted in a desire to reduce corruption and foster new leadership, the practical effects could be far more damaging. It will mean turning Congress into a playground for lobbyists and corporate interests and empowering an executive branch of government which will have fewer checks on a tendency towards authoritarianism. The lessons from term-limited state legislatures should serve as a warning: the real beneficiaries of term limits won’t be the voters, but the billionaire class that already wields outsized influence in our political system. Instead of term limits, reforms like stricter campaign finance laws, the end of gerrymandering, transparency requirements, and anti-corruption measures would provide more effective ways to curb congressional dysfunction— without handing the reins of power to lobbyists.

Term limits allows voters to push responsibility for the way our democracy has devolved onto a “solution” already proven to not work. This superficial fix gives the illusion of reform without addressing the deeper structural problems, including voters' willingness to participate seriously in democracy.