Congressional term limits are a bad idea

Congressional term limits are one of those ideas that look great on a bumper sticker but fall apart with an ounce of critical effort. They stomp out the expertise, relationships, and accountability Congress desperately needs, while empowering exactly the wrong people.

So what would term limits actually do?

Sow corruption

Lawmakers unable to stake their career to electoral public service must ask themselves, “What comes next?” The constraint practically mandates a conflict of interest. There are 535 Members between the House and Senate. How many do you think will fully isolate their voting decisions from their next gig? Term limits don’t eliminate corruption – they bake it right into the system by pitting constituents against each Member’s post-Congress employer.

Drain brains

Term limits erode institutional knowledge. Congress has a steep learning curve and a new Member’s first term is shockingly unproductive. Imagine you’re in your first term in the House of Representatives - it’ll take about six months to hire and find stride with your staff and another year to acclimate to congressional norms, procedures, and chamber politics. By then, you are already six months into running for your next term and it’s time to focus on your re-election campaign.

You won’t be good at it. Of the 52 freshman reps in the 115th Congress, only 13 passed a bill into law¹ (to say nothing of the quality of those laws). Legislating is a no-bullshit skill and becoming effective takes a long time. Jettisoning effective leaders regardless of performance is simply not in constituent interest.

Smother long-termism

Members don’t have much time to build a legacy with a handful of terms. Focus naturally shifts from “What’s best for my constituents?” to “What can I finish (and get credit for) while I’m up here?” Members will have every incentive to skip important but difficult or unglamorous governance in favor of vapid headline magnets that can be completed — and more importantly, credited — in their term horizon.

Bait sideshows

If congressional service becomes less about the work and more about the next “big break”, we’ll attract opportunists that couldn’t care less about the mission. Instead of attracting dedicated public servants, we’ll hire sideshows, careerists, and charlatans abusing the First Branch as a means for some other end. At the same time, congress will offer diminished appeal for talented, earnest public servants who see little point in building a career that’s artificially capped.

Abdicate power to… well, nearly everyone

Unseasoned legislators leak power to just about everyone else. Leaning on lobbyists and bureaucrats becomes a necessity for unskilled members to get anything done. And because congress will be less efficient, the media and the president get more leverage over the legislative agenda. Lack of skilled lawmakers and oversight also bolsters the position of special interests, foreign agents, state governments, and (worst of all) party officers.

This isn’t a call for inaction. I’m not blind to the problems caused by our most-tenured and entrenched representatives and surely there are interventions to consider. Age limits are getting a lot of press - could they help? Maybe. Incentives to retire at certain milestones? Sure. For my money, nothing beats ranked choice voting and open primaries ². But term limits? No. Term limits are a blunt instrument unfit for the surgical problem.