Year to work, year to run
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they envisioned two legislative bodies: an elite club of gentlemen originally selected by their state legislatures to possess wisdom and continuity and a more rambunctious, larger group made up of commoners who would be accessible and answerable to the people. To ensure the second group, the House of Representatives, fulfilled its mission, terms were limited to two years. What made sense in the late 1700s, doesn’t necessarily work in the 2000s. Two House lawmakers, Maryland Republican Roscoe Bartlett and Texas Democrat Charles Stenholm are proposing a constitutional amendment to extend most House terms to four years.
Their reasoning is sound. Representatives are so busy raising funds and campaigning for their next term that little time is left to conduct the people’s business. It all comes down to money. The Associated Press citing information gathered from the Center for Responsive Politics reported that in the 2002 elections winners of House races spent nearly $900,000 a piece and that 98 percent of incumbents were re-elected.
We find little fault with the proposal by Bartlett and Stenholm to curb the constant campaigning and raising funds that turns Congress into representatives of special interest groups rather than of the people. We would only add that while they were at it, to consider term limits.