Campaigns/Elections

Putting Politics Before Principle

When term limits advocates refuse to leave office

|

When Republican Helen Chenoweth ran for Congress in Idaho in 1994, she not only endorsed term limits on members but pledged she would leave Washington after three terms no matter what. But something strange happened in 2000, when it was time for Chenoweth to step down: She did it.

What was she thinking?

In 2000, when Republican Timothy Johnson ran for Congress in a central Illinois district, he promised he would serve a maximum of six years. Voters may have been skeptical, since Johnson had spent the previous 24 years in the Illinois Legislature, but he was adamant.

"There's a lot of opportunity for disconnect if you stay too long in Washington," he declared. "I'm still a citizen legislator now. Having term limits would make you more responsive to your constituents, rather than to bureaucrats." That vow may have been the difference in the election, which he won with 53 percent of the vote.

But the citizen legislator has since made the transition to congressman-for-life. He announced in 2002, during an easy re-election race, that he had thought the matter over and decided it would be better for his constituents if he took the paper his promise was written on and lit a match to it.

"I've got to say in all candor, the innate advantages that an incumbent member of Congress has, particularly after redistricting, are really pretty dramatic," he confessed. He was also perceptive enough to notice that there were advantages for him personally: "When I go to Carmi or I go to South Streator, you're a celebrity."

Johnson, however, has plenty of company on Capitol Hill. In 2006, there were nine House Republicans who once vowed to leave after the coming election but later decided they'd rather stay. U.S. Term Limits spokesman Paul Jacob, who in 2000 made a campaign appearance with Johnson, says that in all, at least 25 members of Congress (not all Republicans) have broken such promises.

This brings to mind Lily Tomlin's remark: "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." When Republicans managed to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994 after 40 years in the minority, they owed the victory in large part to their support for term limits, an idea that was much in vogue. Better yet for them, they got the benefits of that bargain without ever having to subject themselves to it.

In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that congressional tenure could not be curbed except by constitutional amendment. And as it happened, enough House Republicans voted against a constitutional amendment to scotch that option once and for all.

But that didn't necessarily kill the entire concept. The fact that term limits can't be imposed by statute does not mean they can't be self-imposed—as they were by so many House candidates when they first ran. The Supreme Court decision, however, gives these Republicans a way to justify a change of heart. Stepping down, you see, would amount to unilateral disarmament that would help Democrats regain a majority.

It's a brilliant excuse whose only disadvantage is that it isn't true. Of the nine turncoats who chose to run this year, eight got 60 percent or more of the vote in 2004. The other, Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, won by a comfortable 13-point margin.

Most of them occupy seats carefully drawn to keep them in GOP hands until the twelfth of never. The obvious exception is Cubin, whose district consists of the whole state of Wyoming—which President Bush carried with 69 percent of the vote the last go-round.

So it would be no sacrifice to the party if these lawmakers all stepped down. They could keep their promises, and the Republicans could hang on to their seats. But here's the thing: They don't want to leave.

They have come up with lots of rationalizations for sticking around. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., had the best one: "I still don't plan on staying forever, but after Sept. 11, I felt like I should renew my commitment to public service."

That's one way term-limits champions could make the case for abandoning the commitment they made when it was politically advantageous. Or they could try the explanation once offered to a lobbyist by Louisiana Gov. Earl Long about a campaign promise he didn't keep: "Tell them I lied."

COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Editor's Note: Steve Chapman is on vacation. This column was originally published in April 2006.

NEXT: You Can't Eat Here

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wellstone died trying to circumvent his initial threat of only serving 2 terms in the Senate. Maybe there is a god after all.

  2. I am on vacation as well. This comment was written in April 2006. But it’s still funny.

  3. honestly, guys: you’re doing this just to mess with Warren, aren’t you?

  4. I’d be content with a pro-limits politician saying he would leave office the day significant term limits become law. I haven’t RTFA but I don’t blame the guys who want to stick around and help make it happen.

  5. Minor threadjack:

    VM – Did we figure out if you were the one I was talking about hier?

  6. Oh goody, a Chapman article that is basically correct while being, as always, mostly content free and is two years old. WTF am I paying for here? Oh shit, I’m not. Whoops.

  7. Chapman name checks Lilly Tomlin, an under appreciated closet lesbian, and great American entertainer, he get’s a pass this week.

    Not that there isn’t grist for my mill here. It’s just that it’d be easier to keep up the Chapman hate if it wasn’t Monday.

  8. How about introducing a new section. It could be called, for example, ‘Old at Reason’ and would include all articles older than, say, two years…

  9. God, government is so evil and corrupt. Nothing remotely naughty ever happens in the private sector. Government bad. Business good.

  10. WE DON’T NEED A DAILY CHAPMAN FIX! We can do just fine with no more Chapman articles, thanks very much.

    Note: I personally don’t care that much about term limits. One pandering cretin goes out of office, another goes in. Term limits won’t change that, as the presidency amply demonstrates.

  11. I’ve long felt that candidates for office should be asked to sign legal documents binding them to keep various promises. For term limits, I’d have them sign a contract binding them to donate a billion dollars of their personal wealth towards reducing the national debt, and the only way to be excused from this commitment would be to leave office before the designated date.

    Of course, candidates would still be free to not sign such contracts – but voters would know it, and could judge the candidate’s promises accordingly.

  12. Lefiti,
    Just out of curiosity, do you ever do anything besides snark, and masturbate in public?

  13. Of ocurse, that would be like asking a monkey if it does anything besides fling shit.

  14. Warren,
    I don’t *hate* Chapman. I just think the majority of the stuff he writes is irrelevant and/or foolish. That said, on the rare occasions that he actually writes something worthwhile, I’ve no problem with them putting it up here.

  15. economist, I also talk dirty to your sister.

  16. Lefiti,
    That would work really well if I had a sister.

  17. Okay, not really. You would still be a douche.

  18. Look at me! Look at me!

  19. Doesn’t anyone think about MY needs anymore?

  20. concerned observer, last week was your golden moment, you may get another.

    who knows?

    shoot for the moon!

  21. THE URKOBOLD MISSES EDWARD. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HIM?

  22. Urkobold,
    Edward turned into Lefiti.

  23. WHAT! THE URKOBOLD IS NOT PLEASED!

  24. I really don’t have a problem with this… as long as there are no term limits.

    As long as a law is on the books, it is appropriate to take advantage of it. It is not hypocritical to collect government handouts while advocating their abolishment, because you are not the person that created them, and as long as they exist, you should get your fair share. The same principle applies here.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.