Is It Time to Make Another Run at a Term Limits Amendment?

There is a fascinating focus group analysis circulating among liberal activists and Democratic campaign strategists that suggests that the current political zeitgeist should be fertile ground for advocates of congressional term limits to mount a new campaign for a constitutional amendment.

The analysis is the product of researchers at the Democratic-aligned polling and research firm Impact Research (IR), which boasts on its website that it has "flipped more Republican-held congressional seats over the past ten years than any other polling firm in the country.”

The IR analysis focused on the responses it received during four recent focus groups convened at the request of End Citizens United (ECU), a 501(C)(4) lefty advocacy group formed in the wake of the landmark 2010 Supreme Court decision that democratized campaign contributions by ending limits on how much corporations and labor unions can give.

The ECU is one of multiple left-wing advocacy groups that oppose that court decision and claim to be working to "get money out of politics." The most frequently advocated alternative from such groups is using tax dollars to fund congressional and presidential campaigns instead of voluntary donations by individuals, corporations, and unions.

Here's the heart of the IR analysis of the focus groups, each made up of voters who identify as either swing voters or "soft partisans," that is, they may or may not vote for candidates of either major party.

Four focus groups among soft partisans and swing voters across congressional battleground districts found that corruption in Washington is a major concern for voters and is unifying across partisanship. However, voters remain cynical that politicians will do anything concrete to tackle the corruption in Washington.

And therefore, they view both parties as corrupt, all politicians as focused on their own self-interest (particularly self-enrichment) and don’t expect them to get the corruption out of Washington since they are the ones benefitting.

Given its mission as a Democratic campaign resource, it's not surprising that IR then pointed out the fact that:

This cynicism presents an opportunity for Democrats who take on this issue. Taking on corruption allows Democrats to talk about how to change a system that voters feel is not working for them, and there are specific messages and solutions that participants support as ways of reducing corruption in Washington. Candidates who elevate corruption messaging stand to make gains particularly with swing voters who are down on both parties.

Interestingly, IR also warned its readers that they would be better served by focusing their attacks on congressional Republicans rather than on President Donald Trump and/or Elon Musk of DOGE fame:

For these swing participants, their views on Trump and Elon are complicated and still forming. Trump retains some inoculation on corruption issues. His longstanding “drain the swamp” rhetoric combined with the way he’s messaging DOGE through the framework of ridding waste and corruption gives him some credibility.

Likewise, while participants had real concerns about Elon’s role, they were ill-formed, and they saw some positives from his cuts. They are not positive towards either person, but candidates should note that only utilizing corruption framing against Trump and Musk will present some barriers.

While that analysis may be good news for the Trump White House, it likely also means more obstacles for Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.), whose masterful leadership of his fractious GOP caucus has surprised and impressed even his most rabid critics.

Democrats would be wise not to get too cocky here, though, because, as IR notes:

However, members of Congress are ripe targets for corruption messaging – voters view all (nameless) politicians as corrupt, focused on self-enrichment and gaining power. They attach a lot of the problems facing the country to these ills, and while they are not necessarily able to articulate specific examples of corruption, they are certain that corruption is rampant in Washington. (emphasis added)

It is tempting in this corner, as an investigative journalist who for many years has uncovered lots of evidence of just how right those focus group folks are, to say "well yeah..." But one must never allow even the most justified cynicism to get in the way of seeing a genuine opportunity.

And thus the answer to the question posed by the headline above — Is It Time to Make Another Run at a Term Limits Amendment? — seems quite clearly to be a resounding "Yes!" because the people who have the most influence on the outcome of congressional and presidential elections now apparently see the problems as clearly as did backers of the term limits campaign that died in the Contract with America GOP Congress in 1995.

For those who claim that term limits are bad because they deprive the country of the knowledge, experience, and insight that comes with long service in the halls of Congress, consider this from the most recent assessment of term limits by the Congressional Research Service (CRS):

During much of the 19th century, the average tenure of Representatives and Senators remained relatively steady, with incoming Representatives generally averaging between two and three years of prior service in most Congresses, and the Senators averaging between three and five years.

Beginning in the late 19th and through much of the 20th century, average tenure for Members in both chambers steadily increased. Senators’ average years of prior service has increased from just under 5 years during the early 1880s to approximately 11 years in the most recent Congress. Similarly, the average tenure of Representatives has increased from approximately three years during the early 1880s to approximately nine years in the most recent Congress.

Government was not seen as a profitable profession prior to the Civil War. With the massive centralization begun in the wake of that terrible conflict, such perceptions began changing with a result that increasingly wealthy professional politicians have become commonplace.

And given what we've seen from DOGE, thousands of Inspectors General (IG) reports and Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessments just in the past 10 years, as well as the reality of career politicos becoming multi-millionaires while earning low-six figure salaries, does anybody seriously think that American government was more corrupt and threatening to individual freedom in the seven decades prior to the Civil War when rapacious characters viewed government as an unprofitable field for their dishonest endeavors?   

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join PJ Media VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!