Passing term limits on Congress will lead to campaign finance reform

A major challenge facing political reformers these days is: how do we level the playing field and create fairer elections?

Passing real term limits on Congress would go a long way toward accomplishing this goal. By attacking the power of incumbency, term limits address the root cause of the fundraising inequalities that plague our system.

Fundraising power and dominance in elections come mainly from Political Action Committees, most of which represent corporate interests. These PACs, in order to maximize their dollars, contribute reliably and excessively to congressional incumbents.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, PACs spend around $500 million each cycle on congressional races, with over 90 percent of those dollars flowing to incumbents instead of challengers.

Remember: incumbents get reelected 95 percent of the time and tend to vote in predictable and ideological patterns. That means special interests view them as safe bets with a high return on investment. It also means most challengers don’t stand a chance.

This tsunami of cash makes a mockery of our democracy. It allows congressional incumbents to stand on pedestals and say “don’t like me? Just vote me out!” while hoarding millions to ensure that cannot happen.

It creates barriers to entry which deny millions of smart and capable Americans the opportunity to participate in public service, just because they aren’t wealthy enough to self-fund a campaign. It also reduces voter turnout, because fewer people vote in elections which aren’t competitive.

The Center for Responsive Politics pegs the cost of dethroning a U.S. House incumbent at $2.5 million. How many Americans have that kind of money just sitting around, much less in the era of global pandemics? Alternatively, how many Americans have access to well-oiled political machines which can produce millions in donations on a whim? I’ll tell you the exact number: it’s 535, the cumulative total of House and Senate members.

The only proven way to end these fundraising disparities, give challengers a fighting chance and revitalize democracy is by enacting term limits. A six-year House term limit would guarantee open seat elections occur on a regular basis, which would lower the overall cost of getting elected to Congress. By weakening the power of incumbency, challengers will have the ability to compete without needing millions of dollars.

We already observe this in the open races that happen now, although – with no term limits – seats only open up in the event of an incumbent’s retirement, indictment or death. While it takes over $2 million to dislodge an incumbent, open seats cost far less to win. The average candidate in an open seat race raises around $600,000.

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.

Pat Quinn served as the 41st governor of Illinois from 2009-2015.