Nelson 1

Sam Nelson
COMS 101-46
3/8/16
A Necessary Ending

Nelson 2
Within the last year, 74 surveys have been conducted to test the congressional job
approval - 74 separate times for U.S. citizens to express their opinions - and out of all those
surveys not a single one reported an approval rating above 20% (Fig. 1). The average approval
rating hovered around 13%. This means that about one out of every ten people actually enjoy
what is happening within Congress. This statistic might seem quite shocking, but the fact is
Congress hasnt had an approval rating over 30% for the last six years (Congressional Job
Approval). Discontent with Congress is not a new issue, and yet nothing has changed. In the
last election, 96%
percent of
congressmen running
for re-election won
their campaigns
(Glassman and
Wilhelm 6). In
addition, 22% of

Fig. 1. Graph of Congressional Job Approval. "Congressional Job

Approval." RealClearPolitics. 15 Feb. 2016. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

Congress members have been serving for over sixteen years (Glassman and Wilhelm 8). These
numbers are the exact opposite of what would be expected with the low approval rating. If
change is going to come, there would need to be a revolution to curb voter apathy. While this
would be an ideal outcome, it is very hard to accomplish and would not stay constant throughout
time. Instead, a permanent solution could come through term limits on Congress. More
specifically, a two six-year term limit for senators and a four two-year term limit for
representatives. These term limits would bring a positive impact to the United States by creating
a more productive Congress, decreasing corruption, and diversifying the membership.

Nelson 3
Term limits would create a sense of urgency and personal importance within Congress.
Over the last few years, the term career politician has become an increasingly popular term.
The idea is that a Congress member would hold their position throughout their working life. A
seat in the Senate or the House is no longer thought of as a temporary job, but rather one that
could last for well over thirty years (Glassman and Wilhelm 2). This conception creates a
dangerous atmosphere in Congress. When there is no limit on terms, seniority becomes a valued
trait for members. Those who have served more terms are determined to be better at their jobs
and are therefore more qualified for positions like speaker of the House (Reed and Schansberg
84). Usually, this would follow logical sense. Those who have managed to maintain their jobs
should be liked by the public and should be good at their job. However, the approval rating and
re-election rate immediately dispel this conception. Members who are not liked can still work
their way into the senior ranks of Congress; this creates a negative influence on other members.
There is no incentive to try to properly represent your ideals and area if you can almost always
get re-elected (Glassman and Wilhelm 6). Members can put in minimal effort and not have to
worry about the outcome. Term limits would transfer where importance should be placed. The
speaker of the House, and other important positions, would no longer be determined by seniority.
These positions would come about from a member who well represents their party, ideals, and
serving area. Each member would then have an equal chance at obtaining a leadership role.
Emphasis would be allocated to hard work and effort, not length of tenure.
The counter argument to term limits focuses on why a set length of time would
marginalize members. It argues that term limits would mean that members would not have
enough time to accomplish tasks and that they would become more concerned with finding a
follow up job. However, this argument can be proven to be invalid. Eight years is now the

Nelson 4
maximum length of time a president can serve (Korzi 39). Both senators and representatives can
serve for the same length of time, and senators could serve an additional four. There is no
question that presidents accomplish and handle a vast amount of issues during their stay in
office. Franklin Roosevelt got elected to office four times and after his presidency, a
constitutional amendment was passed to limit the presidential office to two terms (Korzi 40). If
senators and representatives hold their position for eight years, then they will be able to confront
the same amount of issues that the president will in his terms. They will have almost a decade to
make their mark in Congress. These members will also treat their time with great significance.
They have a set length of time to make that impression, so every day and vote will carry more
weight. Without term limits, Congress members dont have to worry about missing votes. They
have years upon years to make up for that vote and leave an impression upon the United States.
With a set deadline, members will be encouraged to bring an invigorated performance from the
beginning. A post-congress job might be a concern near the very end of their career, however
members will want to try to make an ending impression. As a congressmen, finding a job wont
be terribly difficult and leaving a legacy within Congress will take a higher priority. Term limits
will bring the best out of its serving members. The limits will also decrease the amount of
corruption that can be found within Congress.
Limiting time within Congress would decrease the influence of money within the
political realm. Currently, powerful businesses and agencies hold a substantial grasp over any
policy. They hire lobbyists to influence congressmen and they can fund campaigns for those who
are seeking spots in the House or Senate (Greenberg Online). Essentially, they are providing
members with all they need: money and information. The businesses and agencies create ties that
keep a congressmen rooted in office. Of course, the congressmen then have to provide some type

Nelson 5
of reciprocation. They pay their thanks by allowing bias to enter their voting (Giles and Page
572). They transition from a representation of the people to a representation of special interests.
In a study conducted by Martin Giles and Benjamin Page, the policy preference of an average
citizen had an impact of .03 out of 1 on Congress. The policy preference of an economic elite
had an impact of .76 out of 1. The dependent variable is the policy outcome, coded 1 if the
proposed policy change took place within four years of the survey date and 0 if it did not (Giles
and Page 571). The elites have over 25 times more influence than regular citizens. Residents in
the United States have relatively zero effect on the legislative process. This is a tragedy to a
country that prides itself on being a democratic republic. Those who are elected by the people,
have no interest in what the people think. While these statistics are bad now, they could sway
greatly with term limits.
Term limits cut several of the ties created by interest groups. Currently, congressmen are
able to get re-elected so efficiently because they are provided with a large amount of money to
spend. They can outspend their opponents, and therefore win the election. Currently, it takes
about 1.6 million dollars for a seat in the House and over 10 million for a position in Senate
(Greenberg Online). With term limits, this continual re-election will be stopped. Instead there
will be many openings for new positions, and this means that there will be an overall increase in
the number of people running for office. The big businesses and agencies will not be able to
select and fund their ideal candidates for the open positions. The result will be an increase of
senators and representatives that lack outside obligations. They will be free to select a decision
that they truly support.
On the contrary, it has been argued that these new members will be easily susceptible to
lobbyists. They will not know what to do and will be readily convinced by those who appear to

Nelson 6
be well versed in specific subjects. It is true that lobbyists will still hold a strong role in
Congress, but their role will be diminished. Lobbyists can currently build connections and
reliability with members of the House and Senate (Greenberg Online). They know how they will
vote, and they only need to focus on certain individuals for each bill. Term limits will create a
constant cycle of new members. This means that lobbyists will have to try to continually develop
new ties. They will not have older members that would be a guaranteed vote for the outcome
they desire. Lobbyists will also need to focus on a greater amount of members to try to convince
for each bill. They will be taking on a substantially larger workload that will slow them down
and as a result, slow down corruption. Term limits wont bring an absolute end to corruption, but
it will provide an effective way to avoid and make it harder for corruption to take place. With
these term limits, we could start to see a shift in power to the people. It would become a much
closer representation of the people.
Congress would contain a diverse membership that better depicts the general population
with term limits. Throughout all of the 114 Congresses, the average member was extraordinarily
easy to predict: White and male (Manning 2). Differences in gender and ethnicity were very
uncommon; only in the past few years has there been a little surge in diversity. In fact, the last
elected Congress has the biggest range yet. The House and the Senate boast a composition of
20% female members. The Senate contains an impressive 6% non-white membership, and the
House is doing a little better with 20% non-white membership (Manning 10). Four out of every
five members is white and male. In addition, the average age of the Congress member is 59
(Manning 5). The demographics of Congress are considerably different from those of the overall
United States. They dont represent the ethnicity, age, and gender that is spread throughout the
country. Again, this wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing except for the fact that Congress has

Nelson 7
such low approval ratings. The current, and past, memberships have a limited perspective that
could be expanded with a wider array of senators and representatives.
An expansion would allow Congress to consider all viewpoints on a bill and then make a
decision that is catered to the whole, not just a certain segment. Term limits would create the
needed opportunity for minorities to run and win elections. This simply follows the logic that
these limits will constantly create vacancies in the Senate and the House. There will be fewer
Congress members running for re-election which means that potential politicians wont need to
spend vast amounts of money to even compete. There will be more availability and a cheaper
means to reach office. It has been argued, that those who could bring diversity to Congress
wouldnt even run. However,
the want for change is more
prominent than ever before.
The main obstacle in between
new members and a seat in
Congress is the re-election rate
(Fig 2). If this is taken away,
these candidates can become
congressmen (Fett and Ponder

Fig. 2. Percentage of Representatives Defeated for Re-Election.

Gilens, Martin, and Page, Benjamin I. "Testing Theories of American
Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens." Perspectives on
Politics, 12.3 (2014): 564-581. 19 Feb. 2016.

215). They will recognize this opportunity and capitalize due to the desire for change. Citizens
will want to better represent their ethnicities, ages, and genders (Swan 801). Term limits can
truly create a Congress by the people, for the people.
Dissatisfaction hangs in the air and seeps its way into the majority of homes. The desire
for change is unquestionable. It is evident that there is a prominent flaw in our current Congress.

Nelson 8
It is easy to imagine the perfect Senate and House, but the route to that perfection is considerably
harder to see. Term limits are the base off of which that route can be built. It was shown that
these limits help Congress members focus on the importance of each bill. In addition, they
provide a means to fight against and work around the developed impurities. Lastly, term limits
create constant vacancies which allows for new membership. At the moment, Congress is just a
stage on which elites and powerful corporations conduct business. The supposed senators and
representatives happily turn a blind eye as long as a handsome reward continually comes their
way. Congress is the last place where corruption should be so easily intertwined. The Senate and
the House have developed into flaw-filled institutions. The restoration of this impactful
government branch starts with putting an eight year limit on representatives and a twelve year
limit on senators. Congress could once again be a pinnacle of the United States. The Senate and
House could be an accurate portrayal of its residents. Term limits could bring the needed change.
With these limits, we could see the steadily decreasing approval rate, finally change direction.

Works Cited
"Congressional Job Approval." RealClearPolitics. 15 Feb. 2016. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.
Fett, Patrick J, and Ponder, Daniel E. "Congressional Term Limits, State Legislative Term Limits
and Congressional Turnover: A Theory of Change." PS: Political Science and Politics,
26.2 (1993): 211-216. 20 Feb. 2016.

Nelson 9
Gilens, Martin, and Page, Benjamin I. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest
Groups, and Average Citizens." Perspectives on Politics, 12.3 (2014): 564-581. 19 Feb.
2016.
Glassman, Matthew E, and Wilhelm, Amber H. " Congressional Careers: Service Tenure and
Patterns of Member Service, 1789-2015."Congressional Research Service (2015): 16.
Web. 21 Feb. 2016.
Greenberg, Dan. "Term Limits: The Only Way to Clean up Congress." The Heritage Foundation.
10 Aug. 1994. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.
Korzi, Michael J. "Theorizing Presidential Tenure: The Difficult Case of FDR's Fourth
Term." Congress & the Presidency, 35.2 (2008): 39-64. 22 Feb. 2016.
Manning, Jennifer E. "Membership of the 114th Congress: A Profile." Congressional Research
Service (2015): 12. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.
Reed, Robert W, and Schansberg, Eric D. "An Analysis of the Impact of Congressional Term
Limits." Economic Inquiry, 32.1 (1994): 79-91. 20 Feb. 2016.
Swan, George S. "The Political Economy of Congressional Term Limits: U.S. Term Limits, Inc.
V. Thornton." Alabama Law Review, 47.3 (1996): 775-824. 19 Feb. 2016.