|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 22 2025 07:17 RenSC2 wrote:
Easy solution is term limits on all positions. President already has a 2 term limit. Put a 2 term limit on Senators and maybe 3 on Representatives.
Sure, you technically can still get frail old people, but they’d have to do it without incumbency advantages. A full term Rep -> full term Senator -> full term President would spend 26 years in office which is far less than many Reps/Senators currently do and that person would have to pass more and more rigorous competition as they are forced up the ladder or out.
The core problem with term limits is that it means that the only people who are there in the long term are the lobbyists. Thus, lobbyists will always have more experience than the politicians, and the politicians need a plan for when their term limits are up (which lobbyists can helpfully provide). If you think lobbyists have too much influence now, this is how they get even more.
|
On May 22 2025 14:14 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2025 07:17 RenSC2 wrote:
Easy solution is term limits on all positions. President already has a 2 term limit. Put a 2 term limit on Senators and maybe 3 on Representatives.
Sure, you technically can still get frail old people, but they’d have to do it without incumbency advantages. A full term Rep -> full term Senator -> full term President would spend 26 years in office which is far less than many Reps/Senators currently do and that person would have to pass more and more rigorous competition as they are forced up the ladder or out. The core problem with term limits is that it means that the only people who are there in the long term are the lobbyists. Thus, lobbyists will always have more experience than the politicians, and the politicians need a plan for when their term limits are up (which lobbyists can helpfully provide). If you think lobbyists have too much influence now, this is how they get even more.
Yes, lobbyists will be the ones who stick around while the politicians cycle out, but I don't think the rest is true.
Lobbying is a relationship building exercise. A lobbyist builds a relationship with a Senator and he's got that Senator for 20+ years doing his bidding. There's a huge return for that lobbyist. If the Senator cycles out every 12 years or a Rep every 6 years (as in my previous post), lobbyists would have to spend quite a lot of money quite quickly to get control over the Senators with just a short window of time to get returns.
It's like when a business has a high turnover rate for employees. They end up spending more resources to onboard the new employees and get less returns from those employees since they don't stick around as long. It's bad for business and I think more turnover from politicians would be bad for lobbyists.
Then add on that most people who get into politics don't actually go with the purpose of being corrupt. Most of them want to make a positive difference following their own values (some just have really shitty values). Over time in politics, those values get ground down as the politician is surrounded by DC muck and it gets normalized.
TLDR:
I'd suggest that
1) new politicians are more resistant to lobbying.
2) Building a new relationship with a politician will be more expensive than maintaining an existing relationship.
3) Lobbyists will get less bang for their buck because the politician won't be around as long.
|
On May 22 2025 14:43 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2025 14:14 Simberto wrote:On May 22 2025 07:17 RenSC2 wrote:
Easy solution is term limits on all positions. President already has a 2 term limit. Put a 2 term limit on Senators and maybe 3 on Representatives.
Sure, you technically can still get frail old people, but they’d have to do it without incumbency advantages. A full term Rep -> full term Senator -> full term President would spend 26 years in office which is far less than many Reps/Senators currently do and that person would have to pass more and more rigorous competition as they are forced up the ladder or out. The core problem with term limits is that it means that the only people who are there in the long term are the lobbyists. Thus, lobbyists will always have more experience than the politicians, and the politicians need a plan for when their term limits are up (which lobbyists can helpfully provide). If you think lobbyists have too much influence now, this is how they get even more. Yes, lobbyists will be the ones who stick around while the politicians cycle out, but I don't think the rest is true. Lobbying is a relationship building exercise. A lobbyist builds a relationship with a Senator and he's got that Senator for 20+ years doing his bidding. There's a huge return for that lobbyist. If the Senator cycles out every 12 years or a Rep every 6 years (as in my previous post), lobbyists would have to spend quite a lot of money quite quickly to get control over the Senators with just a short window of time to get returns. It's like when a business has a high turnover rate for employees. They end up spending more resources to onboard the new employees and get less returns from those employees since they don't stick around as long. It's bad for business and I think more turnover from politicians would be bad for lobbyists. Then add on that most people who get into politics don't actually go with the purpose of being corrupt. Most of them want to make a positive difference following their own values (some just have really shitty values). Over time in politics, those values get ground down as the politician is surrounded by DC muck and it gets normalized. TLDR: I'd suggest that 1) new politicians are more resistant to lobbying. 2) Building a new relationship with a politician will be more expensive than maintaining an existing relationship. 3) Lobbyists will get less bang for their buck because the politician won't be around as long.
You do know the lobbyists are the ones writing the legislation, not the politicians right? The politicians' job is to sell it to their voters.
New politicians don't write anything and they pass even less. They are instruments of the party, which in turn is an instrument of its donors, which ostensibly represent the voters by way of accumulating their money.
Should be noted that "liberal" groups don't do well under this process.
USA TODAY found more than 4,000 bills benefiting industry were introduced nationwide during the eight years it reviewed. More than 80 of those bills limit the public’s ability to sue corporations, including limiting class-action lawsuits, a plaintiff’s ability to offer expert testimony, and cap punitive damages for corporate wrongdoing.
“No citizens are saying, ‘Hey, can you make it harder to sue if … low-paid (nursing home) orderlies happened to kill or injure my parents,’ ” Graves said. “That’s not a thing citizens are clamoring for. But you know who is? The nursing home industry, and big business in general.”
Many of the bills USA TODAY found were copied from models written by special interests were couched in similarly unremarkable or technical language that obscured their impact. Bans on raising the local minimum wage were dubbed “uniform minimum wage” laws. Changes to civil court rules to shield companies from lawsuits were described as ”congruity” or reforms to make laws consistent. Repealing business regulations was disguised under the term “rescission.”
+ Show Spoiler +Which copies became law? Industry and conservative groups are even more dominant at getting copycat bills passed and signed into law.
This bit in particular is a little damning to your perspective.
Special interests give lawmakers fully conceived bills they can put their names on and take credit for. And those special interests can become dependable donors to their campaigns.
Conservative groups like ALEC nurture those relationships at annual conferences where lawmakers and corporate lobbyists discuss policy and mingle over meals and drinks paid for by corporate sponsors.
This arrangement is particularly appealing to new lawmakers, said Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, an assistant professor at Columbia University who has studied the influence of ALEC and other conservative groups.
His research showed less-experienced lawmakers are more likely to use copycat legislation.
https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/
|
On May 22 2025 14:43 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2025 14:14 Simberto wrote:On May 22 2025 07:17 RenSC2 wrote:
Easy solution is term limits on all positions. President already has a 2 term limit. Put a 2 term limit on Senators and maybe 3 on Representatives.
Sure, you technically can still get frail old people, but they’d have to do it without incumbency advantages. A full term Rep -> full term Senator -> full term President would spend 26 years in office which is far less than many Reps/Senators currently do and that person would have to pass more and more rigorous competition as they are forced up the ladder or out. The core problem with term limits is that it means that the only people who are there in the long term are the lobbyists. Thus, lobbyists will always have more experience than the politicians, and the politicians need a plan for when their term limits are up (which lobbyists can helpfully provide). If you think lobbyists have too much influence now, this is how they get even more. Yes, lobbyists will be the ones who stick around while the politicians cycle out, but I don't think the rest is true. Lobbying is a relationship building exercise. A lobbyist builds a relationship with a Senator and he's got that Senator for 20+ years doing his bidding. There's a huge return for that lobbyist. If the Senator cycles out every 12 years or a Rep every 6 years (as in my previous post), lobbyists would have to spend quite a lot of money quite quickly to get control over the Senators with just a short window of time to get returns. It's like when a business has a high turnover rate for employees. They end up spending more resources to onboard the new employees and get less returns from those employees since they don't stick around as long. It's bad for business and I think more turnover from politicians would be bad for lobbyists. Then add on that most people who get into politics don't actually go with the purpose of being corrupt. Most of them want to make a positive difference following their own values (some just have really shitty values). Over time in politics, those values get ground down as the politician is surrounded by DC muck and it gets normalized. TLDR: I'd suggest that 1) new politicians are more resistant to lobbying. 2) Building a new relationship with a politician will be more expensive than maintaining an existing relationship. 3) Lobbyists will get less bang for their buck because the politician won't be around as long.
I dont think you are correct. While lobbying is definitely about networking it is also (wiki quotes):
"Since the 1980s, congresspersons and staffers have been "going downtown"—becoming lobbyists—and the big draw is money."
"according to Jack Abramoff, one of the best ways to "get what he wanted" was to offer a high-ranking congressional aide a high-paying job after they decided to leave public office."
Those working great now, imagine how much more effective they would be, if terms were limited.
Also I think that limiting terms would have another negative effect of shifting power from elected officials, to people who dont really care about voting, namely civil servants and party.
As for your point 2 - I think it would just made politicians cheaper (so to speak), as they bargaining position would be somewhat limited by time. Another thing I think you are mistaken (well maybe not mistaken, but not scaling correctly) is the word expensive. For an individual (except few) few millions is a ton of money, for something like NRA its peanuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i0.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/04/02/USAT/2755c227-cec1-409a-b72c-791212988ee4-bars-introduced-passed_passed.png?w=780&ssl=1)
