Unsure Prognosis for Term-Limitation Fever : Real need is for nationwide limits--and campaign reform

For better or worse, federal term limitation is an idea whose time most definitely has arrived. Proposals to limit the terms of representatives and senators were on the ballot in 14 states last week, including California, and each passed decisively. Concerns about the constitutionality of state-imposed federal limits, about the loss of seniority and clout for states with term limits and about how term limits might shift power to unelected staffers and lobbyists did not deter voters.

Indeed, these were not even close contests. In four states, 74% or more of the voters supported congressional term limits; in all but three states, the measures passed with at least 60%.

QUESTIONABLE FIX: But if, as supporters predict, the prairie fire of anti-incumbency will soon flame into term-limit measures in other states, what then? Will mandatory rotation alone end Washington’s gridlock on such issues as health care, urban aid and the budget deficit? Will term-limited Congress members be more attuned to constituents’ needs?

We have some doubts. Federal term limits may be desirable, but not because they will instantly and thoroughly reform a dysfunctional political process. Federal term limits, wisely and uniformly adopted, may breathe some needed fresh air into Washington--but only if the political playing field is leveled in other ways: First, term limits must be uniform nationwide. Thirty-five states have not enacted federal limits. After last Tuesday, those states now gain a tremendous advantage over term-limited states. Senators and representatives from non-limited states will likely have an inside track to powerful leadership slots on congressional committees. These committee chairs may be able to deliver for their constituents in a way that term-limited delegations cannot.

Congress should impose uniform term limits. Of the 14 states that passed term limits last week, some, including California, limited House service to six years, others imposed eight-year terms and still others imposed 12-year terms. (Colorado voters imposed 12-year federal term limits in 1990.)

Second, absent thorough campaign spending reform, term limits--even uniform, national limits--will guarantee little more than regular rotation in office. Rotation is in itself highly desirable, although even without term limits there will be at least 110 new faces in the House come January.

But term limits alone may simply produce rotation among the same type of candidate--that is, individuals either wealthy enough to take time off from their careers to campaign and serve or those able to attract special-interest money to finance a campaign.

EQUAL SHOT: Term limits do absolutely nothing to make it possible for men and women of modest means to have an equal shot against better-heeled opponents. But campaign finance reform does. Under current federal law, presidential candidates must accept an overall spending ceiling as well as a $1,000 cap on individual contributions to qualify for federal matching funds. But there is no such cap on the amount that an individual may contribute to a party organization, and the parties may--and do--run their own campaigns for candidates.

Earlier this year, Congress passed the first comprehensive reform bill in nearly 20 years. Among other things, it would have extended spending limits to congressional races and restricted the practice of “bundling,” or grouping individual contributions in excess of $1,000 through the party organizations. President Bush vetoed that bill.

More than 74 newly elected members of Congress--along with many returning members--support changes in campaign finance law. Such reforms, coupled with reasonable, uniform federal term limits, could make a big difference in Washington.