Home > Student Contests

Student Contests

Bought, Tenured, Unaccountable: The Case for Congressional Limits

by Akshath Yadawad

The republic was not built for career politicians. Yet over America’s long history, career politicians are exactly what it has produced. For over a decade, Congress has maintained a public approval rating below 30%, the longest such streak in Gallup’s polling history (Brenan). Eighty-three percent of Americans, including Republicans, Democrats, and independents, support a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms to prevent career politicians (Program for Public Consultation). Yet, 97% of incumbents who sought re-election won their races in 2024 (Ballotpedia). If elections are democracy’s mechanism to correct itself, why does nearly every incumbent win regardless of performance, party, or trust? The answer lies in financial monopolies, institutionalized careerism, and structural voter traps, which have destroyed the accountability elections are meant to provide. The solution is not more elections, it is making a constitutional reform. Term limits are not a threat to democracy; they are a missing safeguard that politicians themselves will never choose.

The most direct advantage incumbents have is money. In 2022, Senate incumbents raised $29.7 million in campaign funds on average, while their challengers raised only $2.1 million (OpenSecrets). That 14 times increase in funding gap is not due to chance. According to a study in the Journal of Politics, holding office alone causes a 20 to 25 percentage point increase in donations, with 66% of that money coming from corporations and highly regulated industries like healthcare and energy (Powell and Grimmer). These groups invest in people already in power for results that would benefit them, not the best candidate. Due to this, challengers enter every race financially crippled before campaigning even begins. Without equal resources, good non-incumbent candidates cannot reach voters and engage in advertisements. This results in the election largely favoring those who benefit the interests of donors, not the interests of the public.

Congress was not always this way. In the 19th century, congressional turnover exceeded 50% per election as members voluntarily left office after one or two terms (Cato Institute). Today, that number is only 10%, with the average House member having served 8.6 years, while the average senator serving 11.2 years (Eckman). Without term limits, these terms will only grow. The longer members serve without restriction, the more disconnected they grow from ordinary voters and the more power consolidates on seniority rather than merit, a direct violation of the republic. In Congress, committee chairmanships that control legislation are awarded based on years served. This means a freshman representing 700,000 constituents has no weight, while a 30-year incumbent with no restriction can block beneficial legislation that thousands of Americans support. Term limits would break this consolidation of power and return it to where it belongs, in the hands of voters and Americans. When Thomas Jefferson warned in 1788 that abandoning rotation would “end in abuse,” he was indicating the safety term limits would provide.

A common objection to term limits is that voters already have the power to remove incumbents during the election. However, this ignores the root. Voters who support term limits still continue re-electing their own representatives because of the fear that if they send a newcomer while other districts keep power senior members, their community loses federal power (Chicago Unbound). When every district faces this fear, every incumbent is reelected, and no change occurs. The use of term limits mitigates this issue by removing long-serving members and the incentive to remain in power. This concept was proven after California implemented term limits. After implementation, Hispanic representation grew from 6% to 23% within a decade, and candidate filings increased by 50% (Lopez). More open seats created more competition, and more competition led to a more representative government with new ideas and policies that reflected the current interests of the population. When no seat is permanently held, the election becomes democracy’s accountability mechanism, just like it was designed to be.

Opponents of the term limit policy raise a valid concern: experienced legislators carry valuable political knowledge, and forcing them to leave may give power to unelected lobbyists and staff who do not have limits at all. While this is a valid concern, it is already occurring in our current system. The same research that discovered financial incumbency advantage also discovered that two-thirds of donations go towards the longest-serving members. This means the longer the candidate stays, the greater their ties to special interests develop (Powell and Grimmer). This indicates that career politicians become the primary beneficiaries of lobbyist influence, which only increases the longer the politician stays in power. Furthermore, in 1995, the House of Representatives voted 227 to 204 in favor of a constitutional amendment for term limits, falling just short of the two-thirds vote required for policy change (U.S. Term Limits). Even Congress itself has recognized this issue and the need for reform. Changing the policy will only refresh the ties and influence lobbyists currently have, restoring balance to democracy.

The question of whether Congress should have term limits is ultimately a question about who the government belongs to. As a young American who will grow up to live in this political system, the answer is clear to me. Currently, a system where 97% of incumbents win, where donations go to the longest-serving members, and a committee system where power is awarded based on seniority, not merit, does not belong to the voters. This system belongs to the lobbyists and support groups that benefit from it, as well as the individuals who are financially rewarded. Term limits are not the solution to every problem in American politics, but they can restore genuine and equal competition for power, something that has been lost over the decades. The 22nd Amendment has already proven that limiting terms at the executive level strengthens democracy, and now it’s time to extend this principle to legislation. Congress is long overdue for the same standard. Jefferson warned us. California proved it to us. The only thing missing is the political will to act.

Bibiliography