Opinion

A Democratic Debate

A Congress meeting in progress.

Annika Santhanam and Aayushi Juthani
April 17, 2023

Two writers discuss the state of American democracy at the moment. One debates the necessity of term limits on Congress and the other argues that political campaigns do more harm than good.

A Cap on Congress

The current 118th Congress is the oldest Congress in the history of the United States. Though the average age of an American is thirty-eight , the average age of a congressperson is fifty-nine—and many Americans are seeing this as a call for change. Although the U.S. Constitution defines term limits for Presidents through the 22nd Amendment, there are no provisions establishing term limits for members of Congress. This means that any Senator or Representative can run for election as many times as they want, and can stay in office for as long as they are elected. As a result, many members of Congress have remained in their roles for almost five decades. The stagnant makeup of our political system seems to be preventing the opportunity to revitalize Congress and pass effective legislation. Term limits are necessary for congresspeople of the United States as they ensure that today’s politics keep open doors for new candidates and ideas, rather than maintaining an “old guard” whose primary focus is to protect the status quo.

Implementing congressional term limits fights the power of incumbent members of Congress, who were elected in the prior term and are running for reelection in the current term. Incumbents in Congress are known to have a severe advantage over newer candidates. They not only carry over the visibility they formed in their previous term, but they often receive greater fundraising that goes towards advertising and campaigning due to the high incumbent reelection rates. According to Open Secrets, the 2022 House reelection rate was around 94.5%, and since 1964, the rates have stayed above 85%. Similarly, the 2022 Senate reelection rate was 100%, and in the past three decades, the rates have stayed above 84%. These factors make it virtually impossible for any new candidates wanting to enter the races for their state’s Senate or House positions to stand a chance in the election.

However, term limits will ensure that incumbent members will only be able to run for reelection a certain number of times, eventually handing power to the newer candidates and reducing the stronghold of the incumbency. New candidates allow for a cycling through of potential congresspeople of new backgrounds and new experiences in districts that are continually changing in size and diversity. Though some may argue that enforcing term limits infringes on the concept of choosing your representatives, the reality is quite the opposite. Similar to how presidential term limits prevent a monarchial executive, congressional term limits would prevent an oligarchical pool of candidates, allowing variation in proposed policies and platforms. Elections aren’t necessarily built-in term limits—with the power of incumbency, it is extremely difficult to vote an incumbent out of office, further highlighting the need to establish term limits.

Enforcing congressional term limits can also refocus the efforts and priorities of the congresspeople by reducing the burden of reelection. According to United States Now, members of Congress spend 30-70% of their time raising money for their campaign, dedicating around 6-8 hours a day. Proponents of term limits point to the fact that members of Congress are more focused on pooling enough funds to ensure their reelection instead of focusing on developing and proposing important legislation to serve their constituents. A report by CNBC places the 2016 cost of winning a House seat at $1.5 million, and the cost of winning a Senate seat at $10.5 million. Taking into account the support from interest groups and other organizations that donate to congressional campaigns, members of Congress are more likely to focus on aligning their actions or interests with these financially supportive interest groups instead of with their constituents. Setting a clear term limit for members of Congress in both chambers ensures that they focus on policy making over fundraising, as their motivation for reelection will only last for a few terms, rather than for their entire career.

Congressional term limits would greatly revitalize Congress by bringing in newer candidates and ideas, while enforcing that members of Congress are truly focusing on policy making. Having term limits does not necessarily mean removing members of Congress before they can gain enough experience to correctly design policy—it simply means putting a cap on the extensive reelections being run by members of Congress who’ve spent a majority of their lives in the same seat. Though it may take a while to get term limits implemented in the United States, it’s one of many congressional reforms that will raise public opinion of our government and serve our constituents better.

-Annika Santhanam

“H-ll no! What’s next, requiring a license to make toast in your own d-mn toaster?” exclaimed the outraged New Hampshire Liberty Party Co-Founder, Darryl Perry, when asked to express his political views on government-issued driver’s licenses. Unsurprisingly, he was met with frenzied applause. Perhaps the most horrifying part of this Libertarian debate is that it is not an isolated event; political campaigns have managed to transcend debates, elections, and parties to universally make a mockery of the democratic process by resorting to ridiculous fear-mongering. The democratic ideals that America supposedly upholds, such as informed voters and just elections, are all undermined by this election process. Instead of resorting to this spending-based campaigning system, American elections need to veer into a space that prioritizes facts over fiction through the severe regulation and reformation of the current campaigning system. Modern day political elections are teeming with demagoguery and pandering perpetrated by political campaigns; the only way to mitigate this issue and preserve the integrity of democracy is to completely reconfigure political campaigns by cutting down on funding and minimizing the impact campaigns have on elections.

Past Presidential candidates have gotten into the Oval Office for a number of reasons: their public speaking abilities, past military experience, or their unwillingness to respect human rights. However, the millions of dollars their platforms spend on advertising certainly help expedite the process. Over the past few decades, the amount of money spent on political campaigns has grown exponentially, hurting candidates who do not have the same fundraising capabilities and enabling corporations to have more political control. It is no secret that money can make or break election cycles, and that has become increasingly apparent in 2022 where, according to research nonprofit OpenSecrets, 93.38% of Senate election winners were the top-spending candidates.

This direct correlation insinuates that the amount of campaigning material plays a more important role in the voter’s choice than the candidate’s policies, which is a serious abuse of democracy. If the bulk of elections are being won by the highest spender, this creates a massive feedback loop where they keep amassing more funds for their campaigns. In turn, candidates gain a wider audience and are able to wash out their opponent’s campaigning materials and policies. Moreover, in most of these campaigns, a hefty chunk of the funding comes from the candidate’s own pocket, meaning that poorer and new candidates always start off at a disadvantage. Even worse, any money that does not come from voter funding or the candidates themselves is donated by corporations and massive conglomerates. OpenSecrets also states that fast food chain McDonalds has donated over $650 million to political campaigns in the 2022 election cycle alone. This gives corporations like McDonald’s unprecedented political power without providing any transparency to the American voter.

Finally, there is the matter of wasted resources. In a world where the US government is getting closer and closer to hitting the debt ceiling and farther and farther away from making real legislative change, it’s impossible not to wonder if campaigning isn’t simply a waste of money, energy and time. After all, with term limits as short as two years, Representatives and other politicians are caught in a perpetual cycle of campaigning and fighting for reelection, leaving them surprisingly little time to actually run the country. Perhaps more egregious than the wasted legislative opportunities however, is the money that is wasted on these campaigns instead of being used to better the lives of the American people. In 2016 alone, 95.1 billion USD was spent on all political campaigning expenses—roughly 44 billion more dollars than the US spends on homelessness every year.

While it is easy to imagine that a ban on funding would help rectify the problematic and undemocratic funding issues with political campaigns, that is simply unfeasible; campaign spending has generally been on an incline for the last couple decades and shows no signs of slowing down any time soon. Excessive campaign spending is responsible for blindsiding voters with a glut of information and washing out material from other candidates. That being said, completely eliminating campaign funding would also hurt the democratic process as it would create a less politically engaged public that is less inclined to vote. Instead, the solution lies somewhere between these extremes; while accounting for detriments of excessive campaign funding yet recognizing the importance of spending in moderation, it is difficult to imagine a more apt solution then to place a strict, government-regulated ban on the amount of funds campaigns are allowed to raise and spend. By not allowing candidates to extravagantly spend money and therefore limiting the amount of campaigning material they can produce, we even the playing ground for all candidates and enable officials to spend more time actively making legislative change instead of getting caught in a perpetual campaigning cycle.

The truth is it is too late for the modern day political campaign. It violates every democratic ideal candidates claim to embody like honesty, transparency, and fairness. Whether it be the inane outrage about toasters and drivers licenses in political debates, or the insidious and unethical microtargeting and weaponizing of personal data, political advertising has become a stain on the fabric of American democracy. Considering the irreparable issues with excessive campaigning and spending, it is time to usher in a new era of just campaigns and to keep unfair elections and unethical political campaigns in the past, along with the hairlines of most of our Senators.

-Aayushi Juthani

The Hawkeye

A Democratic Debate

The Hawkeye

Comments (0)