Hacker News Reader

Comment by syki | Hacker News Reader

What does one have to do with the other? Do you have valid reasons for thinking corruption of Senators or Representatives would be less with term limits? I think the level of corruption would not change with term limits and there are some negatives with term limits. I don't see how it would help.

View on HN

Pelosi has been in congress since the 80s. I do not think congress-critters will support higher ethical standards that prohibit them from profiting off of insider information if they think that means putting themselves in a straight-jacket for the rest of their lives. The ability to profit off insider information is probably a reason some of our congress-critters stay in office rather than retiring and pursuing goals elsewhere.

Through the 80s and 90s, I recall politicians and talking heads using the phrase "...even the appearance of impropriety". I'm tempted to conclude there's something telling about the way this quaint phrase seems to have disappeared.

EDIT: not saying term limits are the answer, just that I can see the relationship suggested.

My contention is that we have very corrupt politicians leading the country. That corruption will not go away with the imposition of term limits. It's a bad response to the problem of corruption. I don't know what would solve the problem but strongly feel term limits is not the solution. I know you aren't saying that term limits are the answer; I'm clarifying my position.

I do agree that politicians aren't even trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Their response seems to be that in the absence of absolute proof of impropriety then any appearance of it is ok.

The solution is the require everyone that holds high office to put all their investments in a blind trust when they take the oath of office.

FWIW, I agree with you. For a brief time in the 90s, the topic was au courant, and my opinion was that is was a smoke-screen against campaign finance reform.

Can you elaborate why term limits wouldn’t at least help the problem?

A term limited politician will want to secure their future and will go into the job with the knowledge that their time is limited no matter how well they do the job. They’ll seek compensation. The corruption will morph to adapt to the new reality of term limitations but the amount of corruption will not decrease.

I see, so basically people are greedy. Yet under that same predicate, wouldn’t the same greedy senator be worse in-perpetuity?

Neither worse nor better. Just different form of corruption. Term limits is not a good way to fight corruption.

The Democrats held the House of Representatives for something like 40 years straight until 1994. You had famous scandals involving entrenched Democratic Congressmen. In 1994 Republicans made term limits a rallying point and they took over the House. Both parties have since jostled for control of the House. But when Republicans had the power they did not impose term limits. It’s just a rallying point and will do nothing to stop corruption. There may be good reasons for term limits but anti-corruption isn’t one of them.

>> Do you have valid reasons for thinking corruption of Senators or Representatives would be less with term limits?

I like to think people's terms limit would be reached before they get jaded and cynical.. At the very least, it would reduce the number of years (and hence the total amount of money) lobbyists, etc. would be focused on them. Someone that might think $100K in lobbyist money isn't worth the risk of repercussions, might think $1M (over time) is.

I believe otherwise. A term limited politician will look for ways to secure their future. I think with term limits we'd end up with even more legislation effectively written by lobbyists. Think Robert Rubin type corruption on an even wider scale than it is today.

I don't think we _could_ end up with more legislation written by lobbyists. It's pretty much 100% already.

I think at the worst, we'd be right where we are now...

Plus with term limits, at least we'd be rid of them, instead of having them perpetually come back...

However, the litmus test would probably be if we actually get term limits.. After all, if they're that corrupt, they won't vote against their own interests.

Lots of already cynical people go into politics.

True dat

With limits on how long they can hold the office, there will be a much shorter time span in which they can collect and act on inside information. There will also be a much shorter time span in which they can form relationships with these companies that could lead to the collection of inside information.

In my opinion it's not a solution but it is another way to limit the amount of this kind of trading.

Yes, it might limit this type of trading but the corruption will just be another type.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com