Arguments Against Term Limits

Supporters of term limits have suggested that a system without term limits allows undeserving politicians to exploit this advantage, and creates to a class of politicians who are ineffective and immovable, and who continue to win elections because of the political money from corrupt influence groups. Fairness in elections is one of the pillars of democracy, and the fact that incumbents are reelected at such high rates is unexpected given the approval ratings of the system as a whole. However, enforcing term limits would not change the electoral security that exists in this system. It would certainly shorten the time over which this may occur, and destroy relations between career politicians and interests groups that they rely on for donations, but term limits would not …show more content…
Some proponents of term limits believe that political PACs would lose some of this power if term limits were imposed because it would disrupt the relationships between candidates and PACs by constantly rotating the politicians in power.
However, the agencies that are sophisticated and eager to deploy their money in Washington and, as Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in the 2003 Supreme Court Case that upheld most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, “Money, like water, will always find an outlet” In the short run, term limits can destroy the long standing relationships between Congressmen and special interest groups, and every decade or two, a new set of Congressmen will be eager for donations. But super PACs and interest groups will continue to funnel money into politics. Most proposals for term limits advocate for the chance to run for election at least once, so politicians will continue to welcome financial support for these campaigns; term limits would force interest groups to work harder to gain their influence with each new class of