A policy snapshot by U.S. Term Limits
Intro
According to a 2015 New York Times/CBS Poll, 84 percent of Americans believe money has too much influence on campaigns. Since fundraising is most unequal when an incumbent defends his seat, any reform that fights incumbency can make the money situation more equal. Term limits is that reform.
Incumbents Get Money
Like any smart investor, special interests spend on candidates who can provide them the best return. That’s why sitting congressmen receive $6 for every dollar that goes to their challengers. The advantage makes them powerful and virtually impossible to beat. It also discourages good people from running for office.
Incumbents Wins Elections
Incumbents’ fundraising edge is a protective shield at election time. It guards them from their own bad votes, talented challengers and potential lost support from the party. This system works for millionaires and billionaires, but not the rest of us:
The Odds of Defeating a US House Incumbent Based on Spending by Challenger
Source:Center for Responsive Politics
Open Seats, Closed Wallets
The average House incumbent raises around $1.5 million for his re-election campaign. The average challenger raises around $250,000. But what happens in an open seat race? The average candidate there raises a happy medium around $600,000. So, open seat contests bring three positive effects:
- More candidates
- More accessibility to elected office
- More equal fundraising
How to Get There
Term limits are a remedy for incumbency and the money that comes along with it. By guaranteeing open seat races on a regular basis, term limits deliver a more balanced and accessible system. They stop incumbents from growing too unbeatable, and keep Congress from becoming an aristocracy.
