# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. We need your help.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the new Congress, Baby Boomers outnumber Millennials 50 to one

# data[].attributes.headline
Zuckerberg Explains Internet to Congress

# data[].attributes.subject
Zuckerberg Explains Internet to Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zuckerberg explains the internet to Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Secret Strategy of Congressional Seniority | Ron’s Office Hours | NPR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To: All Interested Parties

From: John McLaughlin & Brittany Davin

Re: National Survey Executive Summary - Voters Overwhelmingly Support Term Limits for Congress

Date: January 15, 2018

Survey Summary: The results of our recently completed national survey show that voters overwhelmingly believe in implementing term limits on members of Congress. Support for term limits is broad and strong across all political, geographic and demographic groups. An overwhelming 82% of voters approve of a Constitutional Amendment that will place term limits on members of Congress. Four-in-five voters believe that it is important for President Trump to keep his promise to support term limits for members of Congress by calling on Congress to vote for term limits, the majority of voters, 54%, believe it is very important for the President to keep his promise.
Do you approve or disapprove of a Constitutional Amendment that will place term limits on members of Congress? *A.A. represents African American voters surveyed During his campaign for President, Donald Trump promised that he would support term limits for members of Congress, how important is it for President Trump to keep his promise to support term limits for members of Congress by calling on Congress to vote for term limits. If a bill were introduced in Congress to place term limits on members of Congress, would you want your senator and congressman to vote yes or no on this bill?
Nearly three-in-four voters, 73%, are more likely to vote for a candidate for U.S. Congress who supports implementing term limits on Congress, 42%, are much more likely.
Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate for U.S. Congress who supports implementing term limits for members of Congress? Conclusions:
American voters overwhelmingly support placing term limits on members of Congress. The support for term limits is strong, broad and intense, to vote for members of Congress who will vote "yes" on term limits, and against those who will vote "no" against term limits for members of Congress.

Methodology: This survey of 1,000 likely general election voters nationwide was conducted on Jan. 5 th to 11 th, 2018. All interviews were conducted online; survey invitations were distributed randomly within predetermined geographic units. These units were structured to correlate with actual voter turnout in a nationwide general election. This poll of 1,000 likely general election voters has an accuracy of +/- 3.1% at a 95% confidence interval. The error margin increases for cross-tabulations. Key Demographics:
Party: Gender: Ideology: Race: Age:
To view this memo in .pdf form - Natl Term Limits Executive Summary 1-15-18

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
M&A Poll: Voters Overwhelmingly Support Term Limits for Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Public Opinion, Survey Research, Strategic Consulting, Media Buying for Corporate Clients and Political Campaigns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Story Highlights

21% of U.S. adults approve of the job Congress is doing

Ratings essentially unchanged after Kavanaugh confirmation

Republican ratings are improved compared with lows this spring

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With less than a month to go until the midterm elections, Gallup finds 21% of U.S. adults approving and 73% disapproving of the way Congress is handling its job. The latest approval rating is similar to the 19% recorded last month, but is higher than the average 17% for the previous nine months of 2018. It is also the first time congressional approval has topped 20% since the early months of the Trump presidency. Before that, it had not reached this high since October 2012.

The poll was conducted Oct. 1-10, as the Senate debated about and -- ultimately, on Oct. 6 -- confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by nearly a party-line vote. The job score for Congress was similar in both halves of the poll, suggesting the vote didn't immediately affect public views of the legislative body.

Background: Most of the variation in congressional job approval over the past two years, since President Donald Trump took office, has been a result of changes among Republicans. Republicans were especially positive about the Republican-led Congress starting in February 2017 after Trump took office, as well as in January 2018, shortly after congressional passage of the Republican-sponsored tax overhaul bill.

By contrast, Republicans' ratings of Congress plunged to 16% last summer after Congress failed to undo key elements of the Affordable Care Act.

Even though the vast majority of Republicans wanted to see Kavanaugh confirmed, their views of Congress did not change appreciably between September and October, spanning his confirmation: 36% of Republicans now approve of the job Congress is doing, compared with 31% last month. However, Republicans are more positive than they were in August, possibly reflecting approval of the Senate Judiciary Committee's handling of Kavanaugh's confirmation process since Trump nominated him in July.

Currently, 19% of independents and 10% of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing, also similar to their ratings in September.
View complete question responses and trends. Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Snapshot: Congress Approval Still Low Heading Into Midterms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congressional job approval stands at 21% in October, largely unchanged after the Brett Kavanaugh hearings but improved from lows earlier this year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will Trump’s backing revive moribund term-limits movement?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although the movement to limit congressional terms has been largely dormant for the past two decades, 15 states do limit how many terms their own legislators can serve.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Term Limits On Member Of Congress: Popular In Theory And Ineffective In Practice | Think | NBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Nothing renders government more unstable than a frequent change of the persons that administer it." - Roger Sherman, open letter, 1788.

Congressional term limits have long been argued to be an easy mechanism for improving the effectiveness of Congress and government at large. More specifically, advocates suggest term limits would allow members to spend less time dialing for dollars and more time on policymaking, allow them to make unpopular but necessary decisions without fear of retaliation at the ballot box, and avoid the corruptive influence of special interests that many assume is an inevitable result of spending too much time in Washington, D.C.

Plus, proponents reason, new blood in Congress is a good thing. New members bring fresh ideas and aren't beholden to the old ways of Washington that have left so many voters frustrated and Congress' approval rating in shambles. At the very least, term limits would prevent members from being reelected despite serving long past their primes.

In a political environment where bipartisan agreement on any issue of any size is rarely enjoyed, this proposal is incredibly popular. Seventy-four percent of likely voters are in favor of congressional term limits. In fact, many members-the very people who would be affected should such a policy be put in place-have shown their desire to limit the number of terms they themselves are eligible to serve by introducing legislation in nearly every congressional session since 1943 that would add a term-limit amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even then-candidate Donald Trump argued term limits would effectively help him "drain the swamp" when elected, much to the delight of his anti-establishment base.

The implicit argument is that Washington, with its corrosive practices, corrupts even the most well-intentioned lawmakers. Because of this, the best-and maybe only-form of inoculation is to limit, constitutionally, the time elected officials can spend in power. At their core, limit advocates contend that elections can't be trusted to produce incorruptible representatives.

Much of the term-limit reasoning makes sense. However, it ignores the very real downsides that would result. Despite widespread support, instituting term limits would have numerous negative consequences for Congress.

Limiting the number of terms members can serve would:

1. Take power away from voters: Perhaps the most obvious consequence of establishing congressional term limits is that it would severely curtail the choices of voters. A fundamental principle in our system of government is that voters get to choose their representatives. Voter choices are restricted when a candidate is barred from being on the ballot.

2. Severely decrease congressional capacity: Policymaking is a profession in and of itself. Our system tasks lawmakers with creating solutions to pressing societal problems, often with no simple answers and huge likelihoods for unintended consequences. Crafting legislative proposals is a learned skill; as in other professions, experience matters. In fact, as expert analysis has shown with the recently passed Senate tax bill, policy crafted by even the most experienced of lawmakers is likely to have ambiguous provisions and loopholes that undermine the intended effects of the legislation. The public is not best served if inexperienced members are making policy choices with widespread, lasting effects.

Being on the job allows members an opportunity to learn and navigate the labyrinth of rules, precedents and procedures unique to each chamber. Term limits would result in large swaths of lawmakers forfeiting their hard-earned experience while simultaneously requiring that freshman members make up for the training and legislative acumen that was just forced out of the door.

Plus, even with term limits, freshman members would still likely defer to more experienced lawmakers-even those with just one or two terms of service-who are further along the congressional learning curve or who have amassed some level of institutional clout. Much as we see today, this deference would effectively consolidate power in members that have experience in the art of making laws. In other words, a new, though less-experienced, Washington "establishment" would still wield a disproportionate degree of power over policymaking.

Even in instances where staffers, rather than members, lead the charge in crafting policies, it is often the member-to-member interactions that solidify a measure's final details, build coaltions, and ultimately get legislation passed. Take, for example, the recent Sen. Graham-Sen. Durbin alliance that has recently proposed a bipartisan immigration compromise. Such a partnership is due in no small part to the pair's long history-Graham and Durbin served two years together in the House and the Senate for 21 years and counting. Term limits would severely hamper the opportunity for these necessary relationships to develop. Strangers in a new environment are in a far worse position to readily trust and rely on their colleagues, particularly from across the aisle.

3. Limit incentives for gaining policy expertise: Members who know their time in Congress is limited will face less pressure to develop expertise on specific issues simply because, in most cases, the knowledge accrued won't be nearly as valuable in a few short years.

We have seen a semblance of this effect after Republicans limited House committee chairs to six years at the helm. The incentives for chairs to dive deep into the policy details of their committee's jurisdiction are now limited, given that chairs know they will soon be forced to give up the gavel. (In the 115 th Congress alone, an alarming seven House Chairs have announced their retirements from Congress.)

Thus, term limits would impose a tremendous brain drain on the institution. Fewer experienced policymakers in Congress results in increased influence of special interests that are ready and willing to fill the issue-specific information voids. Additionally, a decrease in the number of seasoned lawmakers would result in greater deference to the executive branch and its agencies that administer the laws on a daily basis, given their greater expertise and longer tenure.

4. Automatically kick out effective lawmakers: No matter how knowledgeable or effectual a member may be in the arduous tasks of writing and advancing legislation, term limits would ensure that his or her talents will run up against a strict time horizon. In what other profession do we force the best employees into retirement with no consideration as to their abilities or effectiveness on the job? Doesn't it make more sense to capitalize on their skills, talents and experience, rather than forcing them to the sidelines where they will do their constituents, the public and the institution far less good? Kicking out popular and competent lawmakers simply because their time runs out ultimately results in a bad return on the investment of time spent learning and mastering the ins and outs of policymaking in Congress.
5. Do little to minimize corruptive behavior or slow the revolving door:
Because term limits have never existed on the federal level, political scientists have studied states' and foreign governments' experiences with term limits to project what effects the measure would have on Congress. These studies regularly find that many of the corruptive, 'swampy,' influences advocates contend would be curtailed by instituting term limits are, in fact, exacerbated by their implementation.

Take lobbyist influence, for example. Term limit advocates contend lawmakers unconcerned with reelection will rebuff special interest pressures in favor of crafting and voting for legislation solely on its merits. However, the term limit literature commonly finds that more novice legislators will look to fill their own informational and policy gaps by an increased reliance on special interests and lobbyists. Relatedly, lawmakers in states with term limits have been found-including from this 2006 50-state survey -to increase deference to agencies, bureaucrats, and executives within their respective states and countries simply because the longer serving officials have more experience with the matters.

Advocates also suggest that limiting the number of terms lawmakers can serve will ultimately result in fewer members looking to capitalize on their Hill relationships and policymaking experience by becoming lobbyists themselves. Establishing term limits, however, would likely worsen the revolving door problem between Congress and the private sector given that mandating member exits ensures a predictable and consistently high number of former members available to peddle their influence. The revolving door phenomenon is considered a normative problem without term limits and relatively few departing members per cycle. With term limits, the number of influential former members would drastically increase, giving more private sector landing spots to members whose time has run out. More lobbying firms would have members able to advance their special interests with former members making use of their relationships and deep understanding of the ways of the Hill.

On the surface, the case for term limits is strong given their potential to curtail the forces of corruption that so many assume dictate the ways of Washington. But, precisely because the creation of successful public policies by even the most experienced of officials is so difficult and uncertain, we should not mandate that our most effective and seasoned lawmakers be forced out of the institution. Instead, as constituents, we should rely on the most effective mechanism available to remove unresponsive, ineffectual members of Congress: elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five reasons to oppose congressional term limits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Nothing renders government more unstable than a frequent change of the persons that administer it." - Roger Sherman, open letter, 1788. Congressional term limits have long been argued to be an easy mechanism for improving the effectiveness of Congress and government at large.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The idea of imposing term limits for Congress, or a mandatory restriction on how long members of the House and Senate can serve in office, has been debated by the public for centuries. There are pros and cons and strong opinions on both sides of the issue, perhaps a surprise, given the electorate's less-than-flattering opinion of their representatives in modern history.

Here are some questions and answers about term limits and the ongoing debate surrounding the idea, as well as a look at the pros and cons of term limits for Congress.

Are There Term Limits for Congress Now?

No. Members of the House of Representatives are elected for two years at a time and can serve an unlimited number of terms. Members of the Senate are elected for six years and also can serve an unlimited number of terms.

What's the Longest Anyone Has Served?

The longest anyone ever served in the Senate was 51 years, 5 months and 26 days, a record held by the late Robert C. Byrd.﻿﻿ The Democrat from West Virginia was in office from Jan. 3, 1959, through June 28, 2010.

The longest anyone ever served in the House is 59.06 years (21,572), a record held by U.S. Rep. John Dingell Jr.﻿﻿ The Democrat from Michigan was in office from 1955 to 2015.

Are There Term Limits for the President?

Presidents are restricted to only two four-year terms in the White House under the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which reads in part: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."

Have There Been Attempts to Impose Term Limits on Congress?

There have been numerous attempts by some lawmakers to pass statutory term limits, but all of those proposals have been unsuccessful. Perhaps the most famous attempt at passing term limits came during the so-called Republican revolution when the GOP took control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections.

Term limits were a tenet of the Republican Contract with America. The contract called for a removal of career politicians through a first-ever vote on term limits as part of the Citizen Legislature Act. Term limits never came to fruition.

What about the Congressional Reform Act?

The Congressional Reform Act does not exist. It is a fiction passed off in email chains as a legitimate piece of legislation that would limit members of Congress to 12 years of service - either two six-year Senate terms or six two-year House terms.

What Are the Arguments in Favor of Term Limits?

Proponents of term limits argue that restricting the service of lawmakers prevents politicians from amassing too much power in Washington and becoming too alienated from their constituents.

The thinking is that many lawmakers view the work as a career and not a temporary assignment, and therefore spend much of their time posturing, raising money for their re-election campaigns and running for office instead of focusing on the important issues of the day. Those who favor term limits say they would remove the intense focus on politics and place it back on policy.

What Are the Arguments Against Term Limits?

The most common argument against term limits goes something like this: "We already have term limits. They're called elections." The primary case against term limits is that, indeed, our elected officials in the House and Senate must face their constituents every two years or every six years and get their approval.

Imposing term limits, opponents argue, would remove the power from voters in favor of an arbitrary law. For example, a popular lawmaker seen by her constituents as being effective and influential would want to re-elect her to Congress - but could be barred from doing so by a term-limit law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of Imposing Terms Limits for Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The idea of imposing term limits for Congress, or a mandatory restriction on how long members of the House and Senate can serve in office, has been debated by the public for centuries. There are pros and cons and strong opinions on both sides of the issue, perhaps a surprise, given the electorate's less-than-flattering opinion of their representatives in modern history.