Jack Abramoff’s friend Ralph Reed went down to defeat yesterday in Georgia. Some would say ‘the holier they are, the harder they fall.’ But it also seems timely to re-open our discussion of term limits and other Washington reform proposals.
In the early days local citizens were honored to be sent to Washington to represent their area, stayed for six month sessions and returned home in time to complete the harvest.
Now many new Members of Congress come as idealists ready to tame the Washington beast, but within three terms maximum they seem to have been captured by the beast – and the Washington culture of lobbyists, fundraising, perks and pork.
The lobbyists put up the money that keep incumbents invulnerable to everyone but mega-millionaire challengers. The state legislators draw the district lines that keep incumbents invulnerable to all but a challenge in their own party primary – so they play to their base and polarize things further.
Term limits would mandate turnover. But some worry that it would mean that the only institutional memory in town would belong to the lobbyists. And others worry that unemployed Members of Congress are just lobbyists waiting to be hired.
So do term limits need to be accompanied with other reforms of the way Washington operates. Should all former Members of Congress be banned forever from ever being a lobbyist? Should all lobbyists be banned from giving or raising campaign funds for Members?
Or should Howard Baker’s rule apply: If you can’t vote for the candidate, you can’t give to the candidate. What say you? Join the Shoutbox discussion on term limits that is already in progress or start your own.
