The issue is there is no repercussion for doing something unconstitutional and having a court strike you down years later. Prison time fixes this calculus fast; there should be new legislation on this ideally.
I'm not saying we wouldn't have a host of other problems.
It would make the revolving door situation even worse. Can you trust a legislator to deal impartially with industry-specific legislation if they have to find a job in that industry 5 years later?
Now like I said I don't think there's any way to get back to that, but even the notion of a revolving door situation presupposes professional legislators. Term limits in general would help the revolving door problem by limiting the amount of influence any one individual could ever have.
Members of Congress also have mortgage and college tuition bills to pay. How likely are they to go against the hand that might feed them tomorrow? How motivated will they be in their final 1-2 years of office, knowing it's worth nothing for re-election? How hard would you try at your job if you knew you were getting fired next year no matter what?
> the intent was for "legislator" to never be a full-time job, or even a job at all. It was supposed to be a public service that citizens took on when necessary for the betterment and representation of their communities.
Which is all noble-sounding and Roman and all, but so what? Times change, countries and societies change. Legislation today is incredibly dense and complex and even the full-timers rarely read through all of it, let alone understand it. Part-timers would do even worse.
FWIW the age restrictions on holding office are/were supposed to accomplish what you said about politicians having real-world experience.
1. Someone who has been in the private sector takes a sabbatical to serve in Congress for a term or two. When they're done, they go back to their old job.
2. Someone spends their life working on campaigns and for politicians, then gets elected and holds the same Congressional seat for 50 years.
I think my earlier comments make it clear I think #1 is an ideal and #2 is at best a bastardization of what we should have, but I tried not to editorialize the two options too much.