Knock this idea down: Extreme Term Limits™.

[Stinky The Clown]

Extend terms if that seems better, but no one can run for reelection.

Yes, it might appear we lose continuity in government. In fact, what we lose is cheats and scoundrels grubbing for money when they should be working for us. Phase this in, somehow, so we don't turn the whole House or Senate in the same year.

Maybe four years each for the House, keep it at six in the Senate, and raise the president to six. The feds can't make the states limit terms in their own offices, but a model should be pushed by the feds. Four years for governor, four for state senates, and three for state legislatures seems about right to me. Similar terms for local offices. These numbers can allow someone to make a career of being a politician by climbing more slowly from one office to another instead of - oh, I don't know - quitting after a stint as TinyTown mayor, and then a half term as governor, to run for veep and then president.

[Mojambo]

1. You can limit terms all you want. The money and lobbyists will be staying

Term limits aren't the way.

Lobbyists will end up being the only ones who can function because they'll be the only ones with a consistent established presence.

[peacebird]

2. I disagree - term limits will limit the effect lobbyists can have.

they would have to keep buying NEW congressfolk, instead of merely "maintaining" those they already bought. HUGE diff in cost AND one can always hope that with term limits we might run through the millionaires buying their way into office and actually get some folks who care about the working class...?

[Mojambo]

4. I don't think it would be a huge difference in cost for them at all.

Full public funding of campaigns is a far better solution, albeit one that will require an entirely new Supreme Court.

Although I'd submit the same could be said for any kind of serious term limit effort.

[cali]

3. better to just publically fund elections

not that either has a chance in hell so it's all rather pointless to discuss.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. It takes a few years to get the hang of any complex job

I think other mechanisms might be preferable.

[Luminous Animal]

6. One outcome of California terms limits is that the lobbyists rule now more than ever.

http://www.consumercal.org/article.php?id=1403

Apparently, inexperienced lawmakers rely more heavily on industry written bills.

[Dr.Phool]

7. The same in Florida. Lobbyists and corporations took over.

And that's exactly what they do here. A legislator will introduce a blank bill, and let the lobbyists write what they want. It's bad. Real bad.

Also, on the negative side, you lose leadership, which takes years to develop and institutional memory. The reason why laws were passed in the past. You have legislators now, who are passing bills that violate the State Constitution and others that were already declared unconstitutional.

Say NO to term limits. It was a right wing scheme to take over state legislatures from unbeatable Democratic incumbents. Sure, they had some faults, but nothing like the circle jerk we have now.

[Luminous Animal]

8. It's crazy. Nobody would accept year limit on their job. There is real value in experience...

And yes, it is a right wing scheme. But advocating and passing term limits is easy. Vote the bums out without having to do the leg work and paying attention to voting the bums out.

[SoCalDem]

9. I have always favored that idea...

senate..2 six-yr terms
house..2 four-yr terms

NO pensions unless they serve 20 CONSECUTIVE years..

and NO "consulting"/"lobbying"/"think-tank" jobs for FIVE years following the end of a term..

I would also like to see SCOTUS term-limited too.

The whole reason for a lifetime appointment was to ELIMINATE "politics", and yet we have hyper-partisanship FOREVER..

SCOTUS should be age limited too... 60-75

That would allow for a full career prior to the appointment, and would also mean that most would be done raising families, and would be more or less financially secure...and ready to serve ..

With 15 being the maximum, there should also be 5-yr "reviews"/re-confirmations, since many have obviously lied during their initial confirmations.

This would go a long way toward ending the "stacking" of a court, and would eliminate the "death-watch" stuff that goes on now..

[KharmaTrain]

10. You Open The Door To Machines...

Remember, it's the parties that the real power and the money. They're the ones who slate the candidates and as we've seen in the past 4 years can and do act as a group not as individuals. Thus term limit Candidate A (who was a party hack) with another party hack...meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The name may change but the game goes on and you open the door to party bosses back home having the real power as they have the ultimate say who is next in line or what next job the current seat holder will get.

The big problem is the non-stop election season...no sooner does a politician finish one race then the next one begins. Limit the length of the campaign season similar to how the British do it. Prohibit campaigning until 90 days prior to primaries and generals...let them go crazy during the three months, but that's it. Also set a limit on the times they can actively seek campaign contributions. The time length should cut down on the expenses (even Peg Whitman couldn't spend what she did in that time) and give the politician a solid year or so to actually do what they're elected to do...legislate...not go to endless drinkie-drinkie parties begging for bucks.