REVIEW &amp; OUTLOOK (Editorial): Lawmakers for Life
The root of the problems with Congress is that, barring major scandal, it is almost impossible to defeat an incumbent. In the past three elections, 96% or more of House incumbents who ran won. This lack of turnover has resulted in legislative arrogance, a dearth of new ideas and unaccountability. Congress just violated its legal budget deadline; where are the special prosecutors? Franking privileges, huge staffs, gerrymandering and unfair campaign finance laws have combined to give incumbents a grossly unfair advantage. One out of four House districts this year likely will have an incumbent running with no major-party opposition -- up from one out of five in 1988. One-candidate races are now spreading to the Senate. Democratic Arkansas Senator David Pryor had spirited competition in 1984 when he won with 57%; this year he has no opponent at all. Senators have become just as brazen as their House brethren in shutting out competition. Take Republican Senator Larry Pressler's latest mailing to South Dakotans. It contains five pictures of the Senator and mentions his name 29 times on four pages. Last year, Mr. Pressler sent out more than 2.8 million pieces of mail, the equivalent of 10 pieces per household. Critics of term-limits say that -- franked mail or not -- it's wrong to blame Congress for the now nearly 100% re-election rates since it is just as easy to vote against an incumbent as for. Michael Kinsley writes in the New Republic that if incumbents always win, it's because voters can't be bothered. This presumes that voters can find out who the other candidate is. It is a political axiom that people won't vote for someone they know nothing about. That takes money, and skewed campaign finance laws combined with taxpayer-paid junk mail effectively mean that only incumbents have the cash to make themselves known and to be taken seriously by the media. Incumbents ended the 1988 elections with $63 million left over, while challengers were able to raise and spend a total of only $39 million. Some complain that limiting terms would infringe on democracy by not allowing voters to elect whom they please. The polls indicate voters by two to one think the only way they can control Congress effectively is by limiting terms. We also note that these critics are not agitating in support of Ronald Reagan's call for repeal of the two-term limit for Presidents. A big problem of the current system limiting Presidents but not Congress is that this means political power is constantly tipped in favor of the legislative branch. Getting incumbents to reduce the advantages they have voted themselves is something like asking banks to leave their vaults unlocked. That's why the Washington, D.C.-based Americans to Limit Congressional Terms is asking states to call for a constitutional amendment to limit terms. It already has won in Utah and South Dakota. This fall, the group will try to get both incumbents and challengers to pledge they will not serve more than 12 years in office. Self-imposed limits on office-holding were once part of this country's public-service ethic, with Members returning to private life after a couple of terms. As late as 1860, the average length of House service was four years. The number of freshmen in a new House never dipped below 30% until 1901. In the current House it is 8%. Term limitation, once the accepted American tradition, has been replaced by congressional careerism. The opinion polls for term limitation show that the voters don't like the change. They now think the voluntary service limitation of the past must be made mandatory. --- Curbing the Incumbents   Do you think there should be a limit to the number of times a member of the House of Representatives can be elected to a two-year term, or not?   FAVOR        OPPOSE   Total Sample                          61%          31%   By Party Republicans                         64%          28% Democrats                           60           30    By Philosophy/Ideology Liberal                             58           34 Moderate                            64           30 Conservative                        63           29   By Presidential Preference Voters pro-Bush                     61           32 Voters anti-Bush                    60           28   By Race White                               61           31 Black                               61           27   By Gender Men                                 57           35 Women                               63           27   Source: New York Times/CBS News poll. Survey of 1,515 adults conducted March 30-April 2, 1990, with a 3% margin of error.
house incumbents;unfair campaign finance laws;unfair advantage;voluntary service limitation;legislative arrogance;constitutional amendment;congressional careerism;opinion polls;limit congressional terms;term limitation