From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 11:29:29 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov5.212307.10045@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) writes:
|> In article <vb==bZ#@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov4.230711.5810@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> Artifically so.  If the problem is that the incumbent has the overwhelming
|> >|> advantage, the solution isn't to prevent people from voting for the
|> >|> incumbent, but give challengers the same set of advantages the incumbents
|> >|> have -- be it through publicly financed campaigns, PAC reform, vouchers for
|> >|> free television use, mandatory debates, franking privileges for
|> >|> challengers, restriction of franking for incumbents, spending limits, etc.
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >I don't agree.  While I would agree that restriction of franking for
|> >incumbents is a good idea, all the other ideas simply increases election
|> >costs paid by taxpayers and actually reduce diversity.
|> 
|> How do they reduce diversity?
|> 

One problem we have currently is the individual contribution limit.  I think
this limits the possibility for lesser parties to find a few big contributors
to get their message out.  Look at Perot.  If he wasn't a billionaire, would
he have been able to raise the money to get his message out?  He wasn't
able to buy the election but he was able to get his point out.  Limiting
contributions favors candidates with large organizations and disadvantages
candidates from smaller organizations.

|> Voucher for free television use won't cost taxpayers anything -- the
|> television stations are making use of the airwaves, and require FCC
|> approval of their licenses.  The FCC can simply require honoring vouchers
|> as a precondition of owning the license.  Because the FCC sells licenses
|> at below actual value, it's hardly a cost to taxpayers.
|> 

The cost may not be paid by taxpayers, but people who are taxpayers will
bear the cost.  Free television isn't free.  It represents lost revenue
to the station.  Revenue that will either have to be made up by increased
advertising costs (which will filter their way down) or reduced
station activities.  In addition, who determines who gets free air
time?  Should candidates who are mounting a petition drive get air
time?  Only those who met ballot access requirements.  Wouldn't this
disadvantage write-in candidates?  Look at the debates.  Those who
got the free air time benefitted enormously, those who didn't suffered.

|> Mandatory debates are costless.

Who pays for the coverage, who pays for the rental of the room, who
pays for the costs of organizing the debate.  These things aren't costless.
You may be able to get donations but there is still a cost involved.

|> 
|> PAC reform is costless.
|> 

It depends on what perverse incentives it creates.  I think that the
existence of PAC's can be tied to previous campaign reform.  You
always have to be wary of the law of unintended consequences.

|> One could cut current franking privileges in half, give the remaining half
|> to challenges, and have the same cost that exists today.

Who determines who would get the money?

|> 
|> A publicly financed campaign would be a good investment to get PAC money
|> out of politics.
|> 

Limiting government power would also get PAC money out of politics.

|> >|> >I think term limits will help improve our government, and lord knows
|> >|> >it needs improving.
|> >|> 
|> >|> I disagree.  Term limits mean
|> >|> 
|> >|> (1) More lame ducks with less accountability.
|> >
|> >I don't think congresspeople are particulary accountable today.
|> >People tend to vote for the devil they know rather than the
|> >devil they don't know.
|> 
|> The argument that congresspeople aren't accountable because they get
|> re-elected is much like the argument that stoplights don't work because
|> so few people get ticketed for running red lights.  The high re-election
|> rate can just as easily mean that congresspeople stay within the limits
|> of what it is that will keep them in office in terms of accountability
|> as the argument that politicians aren't at all accountable.  
|> 
|> Realize also that many congresspeople "retire" rather than suffer an
|> inevitable political defeat.
|> 
|> Realize also that most elections are in single-party districts and a number 
|> of reps get kicked out in the primaries rather than in the general election.
|> 

How many are you aware of?  Most primaries that I'm aware of where an
incumbant is involved are jokes.

|> 
|> >|> (3) Less choices for voters.
|> >
|> >Less choice by one person.  In fact, it will likely yield more choices
|> >as people fight for open seats.
|> 
|> I prefer a method that allows a choice every single election than one
|> that results in incumbents being re-elected five out of six elections,
|> with the sixth election being for an open seat.  Term limits do nothing
|> to solve the real problem.

The biggest reason that I support term limits is that it breaks the
stranglehold created by the Congressional seniority system.  From
a national perspective, I don't think it is good that some representatives
are more equal than others.  The simple fact is that as long as power
is derived by length of service, it will be to the voters advantage to
reelect the incumbant.  Of course, if government were returned to tighter
Constitutional control which prevented Congressmen and Senators from 
handing out goodies to their districts, increased power would have less
of an impact.  Until that day comes, I'm willing to start with term
limits.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam