Why Term Limits are important in Arkansas

Term limits were created by Arkansans in 1992 and voted for by the people with a 60% margin. Then the legislature tried to reintroduce a bill extending those limits in 2004 or keeping the more restrictive term limits. This time the result was not the same as in 1992, it was bigger. Seven out of ten Arkansas voters voted to keep term limits the same. Have politicians learned their lesson yet? Apparently not! Republicans are not satisfied with winning the majority of the House and Senate for the first time in over one hundred years now they have put forth a Constitutional Amendment to once again extend the term limits for Arkansas politicians. The only serious opponents of term limits are incumbent politicians and the special interests

Why is decreasing term limits bad for Arkansas? The first reason is the consolidation of power. Since the time of the Founding Fathers, a general consensus states that people, when given power, will eventually be corrupted by it. With term limits in place, the power and subsequent corruption will also be limited. Money is a major factor in who will win an election. Incumbents have the benefit of the profits they made while in power. Most legislation is written by a committee that handles a specific duty or topic. Committee appointments can be very prized positions for the power, influence and financial backing that can be attained. These positions are often assigned based on political favors and a willingness to support causes or projects. Therefore, career politicians who have formed the most self-serving relationships can often be given the most power in the legislature. Term limits would work to stop this cycle of political reward and power abuse. Committee assignments would be determined by merit and expertise, resulting in fair and informed decisions.

While there are members of the legislature that have fought for their constituents and resisted the corrupt system of power abuse that is considered normal in politics. The Founding Fathers discussed the need for a “rotation of office.” When one’s terms are up in one office, that politician can run for another office (such as a member of the House running for Senator, Governor, etc.) and put their experience to use in other helpful ways. To believe that only one person (the incumbent politician) can do the job well is ludicrous and an insult to all of the intelligent and successful constituents that politician represents. The truth is we continue to elect the incumbent because of name recognition and party affiliation rather than a proven track record. Realistically, there is usually someone just as qualified to take over the incumbent’s office.

The second reason to oppose decreasing term limits comes down to undue influence. Term limits limit the influence of special interests and lobbying groups substantially. The belief that incoming legislators will be entirely unqualified for their jobs and will be easily led astray is equally ludicrous. The way the system works today suggests that the real problem is in longevity of office and the complacency that can come along with it. For instance, lobbyists invest heavily in long-term relationships with sitting legislators. Conversely, lobbyists are forced to relearn the priorities of new members of the legislature and make arguments on the merits of their special interests and not on the strength of their long term personal connections. Additionally, long term members of the legislature often shirk many responsibilities by delegating them to bureaucratic agencies as they learn how to be “power brokers” in the legislature. We have seen this scenario played out often, even with term limits.

While this list is in no way complete, another big reason for opposing the extension of term limits is elections. Historically the incumbent is re-elected 90% of the time. The playing field is simply not level between incumbents and challenging candidates because of the ability to raise money. Wealthy challengers are often not the best person for the job, as they are so far-removed from the daily realities of the people. A middle class person who better understands the problems facing the average citizen is highly unlikely to get elected over an incumbent and certainly would struggle against wealthy challengers. Term limits help to eliminate the shady, profitable relationships between members of the legislature and special interest groups, and therefore reduce the wealth gap between candidates. In turn, more qualified people will have a real opportunity to win elections and be more likely to run for the purpose of serving the people instead of other political, party and special interests.