Term Limits: Why This Popular Idea Could Make Things Worse (And Who’s Really Pushing It)

I Used to Think This Was a Great Idea

I’ll be honest: I was sympathetic to term limits. Like most Americans, I’m exhausted by career politicians who seem completely out of touch.

The frustration is real:

• Congress approval rating: Consistently under 20%
• Gridlock on everything that matters
• Politicians more focused on re-election than governing
• The same faces, year after year, decade after decade

So term limits sound great, right? Fresh blood, new ideas, less corruption!

But then I thought: With how things are today, I better check if this will actually solve the problem or just create new ones.

And what I found surprised me.

The Appeal Is Real – And So Is the Problem

Let me start with something we can probably agree on: Congress is broken.

The gerontocracy is obvious:

• Mitch McConnell: 82 years old, in Senate since 1985
• Chuck Grassley: 91 years old, in Senate since 1981
• Dianne Feinstein: Served until 90, with clear cognitive decline
• Nancy Pelosi: 84 years old, in House since 1987

The frustration is genuine:

• Career politicians seem out of touch
• Gridlock is maddening
• “Drain the swamp” resonates for a reason
• Feeling of powerlessness is real

And the polling reflects this:

• 87% of Americans support congressional term limits
• 82% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats, 85% of Independents
• This is one of the few things we agree on

I get it. I felt the same way.

So I did what I’m trying to do with everything these days: I looked at the evidence.

What happens in places that actually have term limits? Does it work the way we think it should?

Spoiler: It doesn’t. In fact, it makes things worse in ways you wouldn’t expect.

---

What Actually Happens: The State-Level Evidence

Eighteen states have legislative term limits. We have decades of data on what actually happens.

Spoiler: It’s not good.

California (Term Limits Since 1990)

What proponents promised:

• Less corruption
• More accountability
• Citizen legislators
• Fresh perspectives

What actually happened:

Lobbyist influence increased dramatically

• Inexperienced legislators don’t know the system
• Don’t understand complex policy issues
• Don’t know how to write effective legislation
• Turn to “helpful” lobbyists for guidance
• Lobbyists become de facto legislators

Specific outcomes:

• Private prison industry: Donations and influence increased
• Oil and gas companies: Environmental regulations weakened
• Corporate interests: Got more favorable treatment
• Long-term planning: Disappeared

Who lost:

• Environmental advocates who spent years building expertise
• Consumer protection groups
• Government effectiveness
• Democratic accountability

Michigan (Term Limits Since 1992)

The research shows:

Partisanship increased

• Term-limited legislators vote more along party lines
• Less willing to compromise (not here long-term anyway)
• Focus on pleasing party for next job

Lobbyist power grew

• Measurable increase in lobbyist influence
• Corporate interests easier to manipulate
• Career staff became de facto decision-makers

Institutional knowledge vanished

• Budget process became chaotic
• Long-term policy coherence disappeared
• Quality of legislation declined

Arizona (Term Limits Since 2000)

The pattern continued:

• ALEC model legislation passage increased
• Corporate donors gained more influence
• Government effectiveness decreased
• Lobbyists became indispensable

The consistent finding across all states:

Term limits transfer power from elected representatives to:

1. Lobbyists (who have experience legislators lack)
2. Career staff (who become institutional memory)
3. Party leadership (who control limited time legislators have)
4. Corporate interests (who can exploit inexperience)

---

The Uncomfortable Truth: Who Benefits From This

Here’s where it gets interesting.

If term limits consistently increase lobbyist power and corporate influence, who do you think is funding the term limits movement?

The Main Organization: U.S. Term Limits (USTL)

Who they are:

• Largest term limits advocacy group
• Founded 1992
• Claims to be grassroots
• 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization

Who funds them:

• Koch network (documented)
• Corporate interests (hidden via dark money)
• Conservative foundations
• Some genuine small donors

Their strategy:

• State-level constitutional amendments
• Congressional pledges
• Primary challenges to non-signers
• Work with ALEC on model legislation

ALEC: The Corporate Lobbying Connection

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC):

• Corporate lobbying group that writes model legislation
• Members include: Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Pfizer, AT&T
• Strongly supports term limits
• Has model legislation ready to go

Why would corporate lobbyists want term limits?

Because the research is clear: Inexperienced legislators rely MORE on lobbyists.

This is the key insight everyone misses.

The Dark Money Reality

Who benefits when legislators are constantly inexperienced:

Experienced legislators:

• Understand the issues deeply
• Know how to write effective regulation
• Have independent staff who research
• Built networks with experts
• Seen the lobbying tricks before
• Harder to manipulate

Inexperienced legislators:

• Don’t know what they don’t know
• Rely on “helpful” lobbyists to explain things
• Accept pre-written legislation
• Don’t have time to build expertise (they’ll be termed out soon)
• Easier to mislead

If you’re a corporate lobbyist, you WANT constant turnover.

It’s not a conspiracy. It’s rational self-interest.

And the funding flows accordingly:

• Koch network: Millions to term limits organizations
• ALEC: Model legislation and support
• Club for Growth: Scores legislators on term limit votes
• Dark money groups: Hidden funding through 501(c)(4)s

The Hypocrisy of the Advocates

Career politicians who vocally support term limits:

Ted Cruz:

• In Congress since 2013 (11 years)
• Would be termed out under his own proposal
• Still running for re-election
• Says “I’ll support them when they’re enacted”

Ron DeSantis:

• Career politician (House → Governor → Presidential run)
• Strongly advocates term limits
• Uses each position as stepping stone to next
• Classic “do as I say, not as I do”

Marco Rubio:

• Senate since 2011 (13 years)
• Supports term limits
• Would be termed out
• Still running for re-election

They support term limits knowing:

1. They’re unlikely to pass
2. If they do, won’t apply retroactively
3. Sounds good to voters
4. No actual risk to their careers

This is virtue signaling, not genuine reform.

---

The Honest Assessment: Both Grassroots AND Corporate

I think the term limits push is:

30% genuine grassroots frustration – The anger at career politicians is real and valid

30% conservative anti-government ideology – Sincere belief that government experience = corruption

20% corporate lobbying self-interest – Knowing what helps them based on data

20% political posturing – Sounds good, unlikely to pass, no risk

It’s not a pure astroturf campaign. The public support is genuine.

But the organized, funded push comes from interests who benefit from the outcome.

This is the genius of it:

• Popular policy that sounds great (check)
• Genuine grassroots support (check)
• Corporate interests quietly funding it (check)
• Those interests benefit from the outcome (check)
• Public thinks it’s their idea (check)

Classic case of using popular frustration to advance corporate interests while looking populist.

---

Why Experience Actually Matters

Let me challenge the core assumption: Is government experience bad?

Think about other professions:

Would you want:

• Surgeons with maximum 8 years experience?
• Engineers who must switch careers after 10 years?
• Teachers forced to leave after 12 years?

No. Because experience makes you better at complex jobs.

Legislating is a complex job:

• Understanding budget processes
• Writing effective legislation
• Navigating procedures
• Building coalitions
• Investigating wrongdoing
• Overseeing agencies

Historical examples of experience mattering:

Watergate Investigation:

• Sam Ervin (Senator since 1954, 20 years experience)
• His experience crucial to investigation
• Knew procedures, had bipartisan respect
• Under 12-year term limits, he’d have been gone

January 6 Investigation:

• Liz Cheney (understanding of House procedures)
• Adam Schiff (years of committee experience)
• Experience enabled effective investigation

Financial Regulation:

• Elizabeth Warren (10+ years Senate Banking Committee)
• Deep understanding of financial systems
• Can’t manipulate someone who understands the issues

The pattern: Experience enables oversight of power.

Term limits remove that oversight.

---

What Would Actually Help: Real Reforms

If the problem is career politicians, corporate influence, and elderly legislators with diminished capacity, why not address those problems directly?

Reform 1: Campaign Finance (The Big One)

The actual problem: Money buys elections and influence

Real solutions:

• Public financing of campaigns
• Overturn Citizens United
• Contribution limits
• Dark money transparency
• Voucher systems (Seattle model)

Why this is better than term limits:

• Addresses root cause (money = power)
• Doesn’t lose institutional knowledge
• Reduces corruption directly
• Keeps effective legislators while removing corrupting influence

How it works:

• Level playing field for challengers
• Reduces incumbent fundraising advantage
• Makes elections more competitive
• Politicians serve constituents, not donors

Example:

• Maine: Clean Elections system
• Candidates can run without corporate money
• Public funding available
• More competitive races

Reform 2: Independent Redistricting (End Safe Seats)

The actual problem: Gerrymandering creates safe seats with no accountability

Real solutions:

• Independent redistricting commissions
• Mathematical fairness standards
• Competitive districts required
• End partisan gerrymandering

Why this is better than term limits:

• Makes elections actually competitive
• Forces accountability to voters
• Natural “term limits” through competition
• Reduces polarization

How it works:

• Politicians must appeal to broader electorate
• Can’t just please party base
• Moderate positions rewarded
• Extremism punished

Examples that work:

• California: Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission
• Michigan: Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission
• Arizona: Independent Redistricting Commission

Results:

• More competitive races
• More moderate candidates
• Better representation
• Increased voter satisfaction

Reform 3: Ranked Choice Voting (Break Two-Party Monopoly)

The actual problem: Two-party system forces binary choices and tribal thinking

Real solutions:

• Ranked choice voting (RCV)
• Proportional representation
• Multi-member districts
• Lower barriers for third parties

Why this is better than term limits:

• Increases competition without losing experience
• Allows nuanced positions
• Reduces “lesser of two evils” voting
• Enables coalition-building

How it works:

• Voters rank candidates by preference
• Eliminates “spoiler” effect
• Can vote conscience without wasting vote
• Incentivizes building broader coalitions

Examples:

• Maine: Statewide RCV for federal and state elections
• Alaska: RCV with top-four primary
• New York City: RCV for local elections

Results:

• More positive campaigns
• Broader representation
• Less polarization
• Higher voter satisfaction

Reform 4: Age and Cognitive Limits (Address the Real Issue)

The actual problem: Elderly politicians with diminished cognitive capacity

Real solutions:

• Maximum age for starting new term (75?)
• Cognitive testing for candidates over 70
• Mandatory retirement age
• Health transparency requirements

Why this is better than term limits:

• Addresses actual problem (capacity, not experience)
• Doesn’t remove experienced 50-year-olds
• Bipartisan application
• Based on capability, not arbitrary time

How it works:

• Like minimum age requirements (25/30/35), set maximum
• Testing protocols similar to pilots, surgeons
• Clear standards, fairly applied
• Allows experience while preventing decline

The difference:

• Term limits: Remove effective 55-year-old alongside 85-year-old
• Age limits: Remove those with declining capacity
• Term limits: Arbitrary time limit
• Age limits: Based on actual capability

Reform 5: Ethics Reform (Address Corruption Directly)

The actual problem: Conflicts of interest and corruption

Real solutions:

• Ban stock trading by Congress
• Mandatory blind trusts
• Stricter revolving door rules
• Lobbying cool-down periods
• Financial transparency

Why this is better than term limits:

• Addresses corruption directly
• Doesn’t lose institutional knowledge
• Reduces conflicts of interest
• Applies to all legislators equally

How it works:

• No stock trading while in office (like military/judges)
• Can’t lobby for 10 years after leaving office
• Full financial disclosure
• Penalties for violations

Example proposals:

• Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act
• STOCK Act enforcement
• Lobbying cool-down extensions

Reform 6: Strengthen Primary Challenges

The actual problem: Incumbency advantage too strong

Real solutions:

• Public funding for primary challengers
• Easier ballot access
• Required debates
• Equal media time rules

Why this is better than term limits:

• Maintains democratic choice
• Keeps effective incumbents
• Removes ineffective ones
• Voter-driven, not arbitrary

How it works:

• Lower barriers for quality challengers
• Level playing field in primaries
• Voters decide, not time limits
• Natural accountability

---

The Comprehensive Reform Package

If I could wave a magic wand, here’s what would actually fix our problems:

Tier 1: Critical

1. Campaign Finance Reform
   • Public financing
   • Overturn Citizens United
   • Dark money transparency
2. Independent Redistricting
   • End gerrymandering nationwide
   • Competitive districts
   • Fair representation
3. Ranked Choice Voting
   • Break two-party stranglehold
   • Allow nuanced positions
   • Reduce polarization

Tier 2: Important 4. Age/Cognitive Limits

• Maximum age 75 for new terms
• Cognitive testing over 70
• Addresses gerontocracy directly

5. Ethics Reform
   • Ban Congressional stock trading
   • Blind trusts required
   • Extended lobbying cool-down
6. Primary Reform
   • Public funding for challengers
   • Lower barriers to entry
   • Strengthen accountability

Tier 3: Structural 7. Expand House

• Currently 435 since 1913
• Should be 600-700 based on population
• Improves representation

8. Multi-member Districts
   • Reduces gerrymandering
   • Enables proportional representation
   • More voices heard
9. Automatic Voter Registration
   • Remove barriers to participation
   • Increase turnout
   • Broader representation

Term limits? Not on the list.

Because they don’t address the actual problems and make most things worse.

---

The Authoritarian Connection

Here’s where this connects to the broader threat to democracy.

Authoritarian playbook includes: Weaken institutions while looking populist

Historical patterns:

Viktor Orbán (Hungary):

• Used anti-corruption rhetoric
• Weakened institutions in name of “reform”
• Removed experienced opposition
• Consolidated power
• Result: Democratic backsliding

Putin (Russia):

• Anti-corruption campaigns
• Removed independent institutional actors
• Weakened institutional memory
• Created dependence on him
• Result: Authoritarianism

Term limits in U.S.:

• Uses anti-corruption framing
• Removes experienced legislators
• Weakens institutional knowledge
• Benefits corporate power/authoritarianism
• Pattern: Using democracy to weaken democracy

Why institutional memory matters for democracy:

Experienced legislators:

• Remember norms
• Know “this is not how we do things”
• Can resist executive overreach
• Understand constitutional limits
• Have relationships to build coalitions

Constant turnover:

• No institutional memory
• Don’t know what’s normal
• Easier to manipulate
• Can’t resist effectively
• Each generation relearns lessons

Example:

• Watergate: Required experienced legislators
• January 6: Benefited from experienced investigators
• Financial crisis: Needed experts who understood systems

Remove that experience, and authoritarianism gets easier.

This isn’t theoretical. It’s the documented pattern in countries that have slid toward authoritarianism.

---

The Meta-Lesson: How to Think About Political Ideas

This is a case study in critical thinking:

The process:

1. ✓ Check the intuition – Does it sound good?
2. ✓ Check the research – What do we actually know?
3. ✓ Follow the money – Who’s funding it?
4. ✓ Look at outcomes – Where tried, what happened?
5. ✓ Ask cui bono – Who benefits?
6. ✓ Consider alternatives – Are there better solutions?

Applied to term limits:

1. Intuition: ✓ Sounds great (fight career politicians)
2. Research: ✗ Data shows doesn’t work as intended
3. Money: ✗ Funded by corporate interests who benefit
4. Outcomes: ✗ States show negative results
5. Benefits: ✗ Lobbyists and corporations gain power
6. Alternatives: ✓ Better solutions exist

Result: Well-intentioned but counterproductive policy.

This is opposite of tribal thinking:

Tribal thinking: “My team supports it, so I support it”

Critical thinking: “Let me check what the evidence shows”

The difference matters.

Especially now, when authoritarian propaganda techniques are designed to destroy evidence-based thinking.

---

My Honest Conclusion

I started out thinking term limits were a great idea. The frustration with career politicians is real. The gerontocracy is obvious. The gridlock is maddening.

Then I did what I’m trying to do more often: I checked the evidence instead of just going with my gut.

And the evidence changed my mind:

State-level data shows:

• Increased lobbyist power
• Decreased effectiveness
• Lost institutional knowledge
• More corporate influence
• No reduction in corruption

Following the money reveals:

• Corporate interests funding the push
• Organizations like ALEC supporting it
• Dark money flowing to advocates
• Beneficiaries are those who gain from inexperience

This was uncomfortable to realize.

I WANT a simple solution. I want to believe we can just “drain the swamp” with one straightforward reform.

But that’s not how it works.

Term limits are a simple solution to a complex problem.

And simple solutions to complex problems usually make things worse.

Here’s what would actually help:

• Campaign finance reform (address money directly)
• Independent redistricting (end safe seats)
• Ranked choice voting (increase competition)
• Age limits (address cognitive decline specifically)
• Ethics reform (reduce corruption)

These address actual problems without losing institutional knowledge.

And yes, they’re harder. They’re more complex. They require more effort than just setting a time limit.

But democracy isn’t supposed to be easy. It’s supposed to work.

---

What I’m Asking (Not of You, But With You)

Look, I’m not trying to tell you what to think.

I changed my mind on this after looking at the evidence. Maybe you will too. Maybe you won’t.

All I’m asking is what I’m trying to do myself:

1. Look at the actual data – Not what sounds good, but what actually happens in states with term limits
2. Follow the money – Who’s funding this push and why? Do they benefit from the outcome?
3. Consider the alternatives – Are there better ways to address the same frustrations?
4. Think about unintended consequences – Who really benefits from constant inexperience in government?
5. Be willing to change your mind – I did. It’s uncomfortable but necessary.

This is the process I’m trying to apply to everything now.

Not: “What does my tribe say?”

But: “What does the evidence show?”

It’s harder. It takes more work. Sometimes it means admitting you were wrong.

But it’s the only way to actually solve problems instead of just feeling good about “solutions” that make things worse.

---

The Bigger Picture

This term limits analysis connects to everything in the “Do Unto Others” series.

The pattern:

• Popular frustration (real)
• Simple solution offered (term limits)
• Corporate interests fund it (knowing they benefit)
• Institutions weakened (easier to manipulate)
• Democracy eroded (institutional memory lost)

It’s not a conspiracy.

It’s rational actors pursuing self-interest while hiding behind populist rhetoric.

The antidote:

• Check the research
• Follow the money
• Demand evidence
• Think systemically
• Resist simple solutions to complex problems

Democracy requires:

• Critical thinking over tribal loyalty
• Evidence over intuition
• Systemic solutions over simple ones
• Long-term thinking over quick fixes

Term limits fail all these tests.

Let’s demand reforms that actually work instead.

---

Resources & Further Reading

State-level term limits research:

• National Conference of State Legislatures: Term Limits Studies
• Cain & Kousser: “Adapting to Term Limits: Recent Experiences and New Directions”
• Kurtz, Cain & Niemi: “Institutional Change in American Politics: The Case of Term Limits”

Funding and advocacy:

• U.S. Term Limits organization financial disclosures
• ALEC model legislation database
• Center for Media and Democracy: ALEC Exposed

Alternative reforms:

• FairVote: Ranked Choice Voting research
• Common Cause: Campaign finance reform
• RepresentUs: Anti-corruption act proposals

On institutional knowledge and democracy:

• Levitsky & Ziblatt: “How Democracies Die”
• Mounk: “The People vs. Democracy”
• Snyder: “On Tyranny”

---

The bottom line:

Term limits sound great. The evidence shows they don’t work. Better solutions exist.

Let’s focus on reforms that actually address the problems: money in politics, gerrymandering, two-party monopoly, and age-related decline.

Democracy is too important to settle for solutions that feel good but make things worse.

Think critically. Check the evidence. Demand better.

That’s how we defend democracy.