SCOTUS opens the tap for campaign contributions.

Originally posted by normbenign
That may or may not be true. In some cases, such as Carl Levin retiring 90 plus year old Senator from Michigan, his trophy wife is running for the seat. Name recognition alone may give her a winning edge. This doesn't always hold true. I think that term limits would eliminate professional politicians, and to a lesser extent, people being influenced by ...[text shortened]... e pressure on them to make their money early. I'd like to see what the actual effects would be.

They've been married since 1961 (53 years) and I can't find a replacement being installed, but that makes her a trophy wife in my opinion too. It's just not the usual definition.

I understand your pragmatic desire to rely on results to judge term limits, but can't you see something disenfranchising of the citizen, in saying that after some defined limit, you can no longer stand for election to fully participate in the democracy?

Originally posted by JS357
They've been married since 1961 (53 years) and I can't find a replacement being installed, but that makes her a trophy wife in my opinion too. It's just not the usual definition.

I understand your pragmatic desire to rely on results to judge term limits, but can't you see something disenfranchising of the citizen, in saying that after some defined limit, you can no longer stand for election to fully participate in the democracy?

I ought to clarify a gross blunder. The retiring House member is John Dingle, not Carl Levin. His wife Debbie will run for his house seat. they were married in 1981, she at the age of 27, he quite a bit older. By the way, John Dingle is probably my favorite Democrat. His wife is much more liberal, and I can't stand her.

Actually, the term limits I've seen are longer than I would approve. One small benefit is that with short limits more people might be encouraged to participate in public service, people who didn't do so for a secure, long term job. It would save considerable money, not having to provide a retirement and medical care forever to such people, and I believe the short termer would be less likely to have or develop an elitist attitude to his constituency.

A one term limit would allow the elected official to work on something besides reelection. I could even see a candidate running again, but not consecutive terms. Perhaps having different, non professional candidates might wake up the electorate, and force candidates to actually say something about their plans instead of the typical mudslinging that goes on now.

Originally posted by normbenign
I ought to clarify a gross blunder. The retiring House member is John Dingle, not Carl Levin. His wife Debbie will run for his house seat. they were married in 1981, she at the age of 27, he quite a bit older. By the way, John Dingle is probably my favorite Democrat. His wife is much more liberal, and I can't stand her.

Actually, the term limits I ...[text shortened]... to actually say something about their plans instead of the typical mudslinging that goes on now.

OK on it being Dingle not Levin. I won't comment of Dingle's wife's trophy-ness.

On term limits: We are pitching your results-oriented justification (yet to be proven, IMO) against my principle-based approach. Principles can legitimately be subservient to practicalities, but I'm not convinced the results you are banking on will materialize. One good thing about our governmental system is that the states are experimental laboratories. Do we have data on the effects of term limits? No need to answer, it's time for me to do some homework.

Originally posted by JS357
OK on it being Dingle not Levin. I won't comment of Dingle's wife's trophy-ness.

On term limits: We are pitching your results-oriented justification (yet to be proven, IMO) against my principle-based approach. Principles can legitimately be subservient to practicalities, but I'm not convinced the results you are banking on will materialize. One good thing a ...[text shortened]... ave data on the effects of term limits? No need to answer, it's time for me to do some homework.

We have only our Presidential system which is term limited and provides some insight into its results, although I believe my no consecutive rule would leave even Presidents more free to work without concern for reelection.

Many look at Roosevelt's four terms and see an elitist disaster, and prior to FDR, without written term limits, from George Washington forward other Presidents limited themselves.

In Michigan we are into a second decade of term limits for State legislators, and Governor. I can see no downside, and although it hasn't eliminate all the problems, it does bring new and fresh faces and ideas forward. Many still pursue a course of electoral life, running for other local or national offices, so no voter is disenfranchised. Those running know they have a limited window of service, which I see as a good thing. I would prefer that they go back to private life, and that would be more likely if public service weren't such a gravy train.

Originally posted by normbenign
We have only our Presidential system which is term limited and provides some insight into its results, although I believe my no consecutive rule would leave even Presidents more free to work without concern for reelection.

Many look at Roosevelt's four terms and see an elitist disaster, and prior to FDR, without written term limits, from George Washing ...[text shortened]... ack to private life, and that would be more likely if public service weren't such a gravy train.

Pandering to the party's interests might replace pandering to one's own electoral hopes, in that the party and its funders can help deliver a comfortable career (revolving door) or election to a different role in government. I don't have any history to rely on for that point WRT the impact of term limits.

Lots of people would disagree you on FDR. But seeing history through the lens of one's own leanings is unavoidable. I'll rest my case on the disenfranchisement point, since the jury is going to have to await more experience with term limits in legislative bodies, to test your position.

Originally posted by JS357
Pandering to the party's interests might replace pandering to one's own electoral hopes, in that the party and its funders can help deliver a comfortable career (revolving door) or election to a different role in government. I don't have any history to rely on for that point WRT the impact of term limits.

Lots of people would disagree you on FDR. But seein ...[text shortened]... to have to await more experience with term limits in legislative bodies, to test your position.

What would you think about eliminating any long term job benefits? Perhaps that would eliminate those with long term ambitions without eliminating any voter choice.