The many appealing effects of congressional term limits

Re: “Another thing Steyer is wrong about,” Jan. 20 commentary

Jamelle Bouie’s arguments missed the fundamental value of term limits in ending corruption — with term limits, every vote at the legislature has a significant fraction of representatives or senators who cannot run for reelection, and so are not beholden to their corporate contributors.

Also, if a legislator can only be “bought” for at most a part of their potential legislative lifetime, the incentive for contributors to even try is lessened.

These are also the people in the legislature with the most experience, since it’s their last term. So they are both the natural leaders and the freest to vote in the public interest.

Experience can be gained in any number of ways, including on the job. This stuff is not quantum physics, and anyone with interest and intelligence can learn rapidly, especially given all the entities that lobby one way or the other.

Boule is correct regarding the need for campaign finance reform, non partisan primaries, etc. Term limits are just another piece in the effort to make government for the people, and not for the special interests.

Steve Pomerance, Boulder

Jamelle Bouie highlights many important talking points in his recent editorial, the primary topic being that the term limits discussion seems to be reactionary, and focused on our fear-based instincts.

He overlooks one relevant point. Our politicians are keenly focused on two- to six-year horizons, because that’s how long their terms are. Most decisions they make are therefore unduly influenced by “how will this affect my re-election bid?” This promotes populist shortterm thinking and decisions.

These term lengths may have been appropriate in the 1800’s and the 1900’s. I would submit that in the 2000’s, however, it cements shortterm thinking into place.

Representatives are perpetually running for re-election, which is a huge distraction. Senators have drawn out and prohibitively expensive elections. A compromise worth considering might be extending representative terms to four years, with a six-term limit; and keeping Senate terms at six years, with a four-term limit.

Such a change would promote greater continuity among our legislators, minimize the influences and distractions of the re-election process, allow a natural opportunity for generational change (about 20 years), and promote long-term thinking — something that Congress hasn’t had for most of this century.

Jeffrey Sippel, Denver