[Susan]

There is too much political corruption in local, county, state, and federal government politics. Study the dirty politicians who have been or are being charged with bribery, racketeering, and other forms of political, financial, and white collar crimes. You will see that they are the politicians who have been in office for too many years. Serving in politics should serve for a short period, not a career. Look at Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, and Kamala Harris. They have never worked in the private sector and have been a career politician. There should be term limits in all forms of government. Look at Illinois House Speaker James Madigan, Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, and hundreds of other city, local, state, and federal elected officials. Is there any movement to make term limits mandatory?

[Gustan Cho]

Political corruption, such as bribery, racketeering, and other financial or white-collar crimes, continues to be a concern within the different levels of government. Many people believe that long-serving politicians are more prone to corrupt behavior because of the power, connections, and special interests that come with a lengthy tenure. Your questions will be answered here through the lens of political corruption, defending the case for term limits, and discussing the evolving landscape of the term limits movement in local to federal governments. Additionally, I will examine the politicians you referenced along with their careers and scrutinize the correlation between tenure and corruption.

Political Deceit and Career Politicians

Although high-profile scandals increase the likelihood of the public making the connection between prolonged tenure and a politician’s propensity for corruption, it is worth considering whether tenure alone is the determining factor. Some media outlets have scrutinized most of the politicians you mentioned, but that does not mean they have all been convicted.

Joe Biden:

The former President of the United States. Formerly served as Vice President (2009-2017) and as a US Senator from Delaware for 36 years (1973-2009). While Biden has faced allegations of family-related ethical issues, he has not been legally charged with either bribery or racketeering. Investigations into his conduct have often been politically driven and have not resulted in convictions.

Chuck Schumer:

Senate Majority Leader and Senator from New York (1999-present). Former US Representative (1981-1999). Although Schumer has faced suspicion of bribery and racketeering, no formal charges have been brought against him. Whether one views his political longevity positively or negatively, his enduring tenure supports and encourages a model for a “career politician.” Still, there remain no criminal charges that have substantiated the claims of corruption.

Gavin Newsom:

Governor of California since 2019, Newsom served as the state’s Lieutenant Governor from 2011-2019 and was Mayor of San Francisco from 2004-2011. Although ethical questions have been raised concerning campaign donor conflicts of interest, he has not been charged with bribery or racketeering. He has mostly worked in the public sector and lacks private-sector experience.

Nancy Pelosi:

Serving as the House Speaker and Representative for California since 1987, Pelosi has been in politics for a long time. She has faced backlash due to her growing wealth and stock investments, which some correlate to insider trading. However, she has not been charged with bribery or racketeering. Her lengthy tenure is often cited in discussions on term limits as an example of entrenched power.

Kamala Harris:

Served as Vice President from 2021, before that, a US Senator from 2017 to 2021, California Attorney General from 2011 to 2017, and San Francisco District Attorney from 2004 to 2011. While Harris has yet to be charged with any criminal offense of bribery or racketeering, her career mostly consists of public roles, which furthers the argument of career politicians.

Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan:

I believe Michael Madigan was the Illinois House Speaker from 1983 to 2021, holding the office with breaks between his terms. Madigan was indicted in 2022 for racketeering, bribery, and extortion with ComEd and other utility companies a few years prior. His case exemplifies how long-serving politicians (in this case, over 50 years) are often accused of corruption, reinforced by the notion that a long tenure can enable systemic corruption.

Chicago Mayors Richard J. Daley and Richard M. Daley:

Richard J. Daley was a Mayor from 1955 to 1976 and was known for his harsh political machine built during this era. Despite all the corruption accusations and harsh criticism of his tenure, he was never charged with any offenses. After him, his son Richard M. Daley also served as mayor from 1989 to 2011. He was known to get into patronage and contracts scandals, even with his associates convicted of treasonous acts. Similar to what was said for his father, Richard M. Daley served 22 years and was also never charged. These two long tenures exemplify how systems that serve under one ruler or regime for too long lead to corruption.

Last update of October 2023. More practical examples of corruption in politics include:

Bob Menendez (Former US Senator from New Jersey, 2006–2024):

Receiving gold bars, cash, and other objects and benefits in exchange for political favors led to his conviction of bribery, fraud, and extortion in 2024. Upon the end of his state-level roles and 18-year Senate tenure, he became an easy target for advocates of term limits.

Sheldon Silver (Former New York Assembly Speaker, 1994–2015):

With an astounding 21-year Speaker term, his power was quite literally untouchable. Because of that, he was convicted in 2015 (again in a 2018 retrial) for money laundering, extortion, and a sponsorship fraud kickback scheme.

While chronic opportunists tend to be associated with long-serving politicians, that does not mean they are the only ones capable of corrupt practices. One example is George Helmy (US Senator from New Jersey, Appointed 2024), who was already under the public eye for potential conflicts of interest early into his new position. Lastly, it is worth recognizing that while enduring rot will most likely only bring about terrible outcomes, short stints in power do not exempt officials from a lack of integrity, as highlighted by Rod Blagojevich (Illinois Governor, 2003-2009), who was found guilty of attempting to sell a seat in the Senate.

There’s no consensus about corruption and tenure. A 2017 study from Michigan State University found that states with term limits tend to do worse financially and are more susceptible to influence from interest groups, indicating that shorter tenures do not curb corruption. Rather, weak oversight, a lack of transparency, and advantages given to incumbents (e.g., fundraising and name recognition) may be more important.

The Argument Supporting Anti-Entitlement Rules

Advocates for term limits contend that they:

Curtail Entrenchment:

As Madigan demonstrated, longstanding politicians create networks that serve personal agendas.

Increase Accountability:

As advocated by Thomas Jefferson, term limits constrain politicians to a private life after serving publicly, ensuring they live under the very laws they have drafted.

Promote Fresh Ideas:

Every newcomer has the potential to offer valuable new ideas that may help dismantle prevailing systems and processes.

Counter Incumbent Advantages:

Name recognition, media exposure, and PAC funding (90% of PAC funds go to incumbents) give incumbent holders a marked advantage during elections. Term limits create open-seat contests, and levels of competition are increased.

However, these opposing views are supported by:

Increase Lobbyist Influence:

Increased reliance on lobbyists and staff specializing in policies may lead to greater influence of special interests. Less experienced legislators may rely heavily on lobbyists and staff as policy “experts.”

Reduce Expertise:

Continuity in service leads to accumulating knowledge, which is lost with high turnover.

Shift Power Dynamics:

Term limits in some state legislatures may weaken legislative power over executives or desk officers.

Don’t Guarantee Better Outcomes:

Evidence suggests that in states with term limits, campaign spending, diversity, and policy performance have not improved relative to states without limits.

Current Term Limits Movement

Although the term limits movement has considerable public backing, it encounters obstacles to implementation, especially at the federal level. Below, I summarize recent changes across various branches of government.

Federal Level

US Congress:

There are no term limits for Senators or Representatives because of the 1995 Supreme Court decision in US Term Limits v. Thornton. States cannot place term limits on federal officials unless constitutional amendments are passed.

An amendment to the Constitution necessitates a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress or a convention called by two-thirds of the states (34), with three-fourths (38) of the states needed for ratification.

Current Efforts:

US Term Limits (USTL):

This organization, founded in the 1990s as the leading advocate for term limits, has remained silent. USTL has been pushing for a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of Congress members (for example, three terms for House members and two for Senators). They have pledged support from candidates and are making moves in 19 state legislatures in 2025.

State-Led Convention:

As of May 7, 2025, 12 states, which include West Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Alabama, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Indiana, and South Carolina, have passed resolutions calling for an Article V convention to propose an amendment for term limits. Nineteen states have passed broader ‘limited government’ resolutions, which include term limits. USTL is working to achieve 34 states with their Term Limits Convention proposal.

Congressional Proposals:

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Representative Ralph Norman (R-SC) proposed resolutions SJR2 and HJR11 in 2025 to add an amendment for term limits. However, these are unlikely to pass considering the need for a supermajority by December 2026.

Public Support:

Term limits have received 82-87% support from voters for congressional term limits across both parties, with only left-leaning voters showing marginally lower approval.

Recent Developments:

Other states DeSantis is pushing to join the ‘Ohio-led’ party include advocating for other states to join the Article V convention push.

The movement recently celebrated victories with South Carolina passing HCR3008 and Alaska’s Frank Tomaszewski filing HJR22.

State Level

Existing Term Limits:

As of 2025, 15 state legislatures employ and enforce term limits, with a maximum length of service ranging between 8 and 12 years (California, Colorado, and Oklahoma since 1990; Nebraska since 2000). Thirty-six states enforce term limits for Governors. Governors also have term limits in thirty-six states.

Repeals and Challenges:

Idaho was among six states in 2002 that either repealed or had term limits deemed unconstitutional, losing legislative effectiveness.

Recent Developments:

Efforts are ongoing to promote and enact interstate initiatives with organizations like USTL backing state-level plans. Florida’s legislative term limits (8 years for legislators) are frequently presented as a benchmark, though critiqued by State Representative Valdes, claiming that under-experienced lawmakers led to poorly designed policies.

Local and County Level

Prevalence:

Term limits exist in 9 out of the 10 most populous US cities, including New York and Los Angeles, where elected officials’ terms are limited to 8-12 years. Hundreds of counties and municipalities have adopted this.

Recent Developments:

Local term limits are mostly established through local initiatives or referenda. Chicago’s mayor is limited to two four-year terms. However, the Daley family had previously held those positions for decades, which adds some nuance to the example.

The movement continues to pursue growth in more peripheral areas, where USTL is assisting local initiatives. About Term Limits

Other Considerations

Supreme Court Term Limits:

The recent scandal involving the court’s justices has heightened calls to implement term or age limits. A Pew survey indicates 82% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans support age caps. A group of Democrats has proposed a bill in Congress to implement term limits for justices, but it hasn’t received bipartisan support.

Public Sentiment on X:

Posts on X showcase anger toward politicians who stay in power for decades, mentioning Pelosi’s 38 years and Biden’s 37 years as evidence of why there should be term limits. These posts mentioned the 238+ years some politicians served without providing proof of specific crimes being committed.

Critical Analysis

It is true that some long-serving politicians, such as Menendez and Madigan, are associated with corruption. Still, the argument that tenure is directly linked to crime is not widely held. Take Blagojevich, who was corrupt early in a politician’s life. Campaign finance laws can be overly permissive or lacking in robust ethics enforcement, so they freely undermine the impact of term limits. Some studies claim that there are effects that outweigh benefits. While term limits can cut down legislative Expertise, they can also reduce the influence of lobbyists.

Additionally, the politicians you mentioned have not been convicted of bribery or racketeering, indicating that tenure does not solely explain corruption. It is possible that structural factors, such as the fundraising advantage incumbents have (95% of incumbents are re-elected), are of greater importance.

The movement is active and growing, especially with USTL’s convention strategy led by states. However, a federal amendment is still out of reach because of the need for supermajorities, or 34 state resolutions. There is more widespread discussion at the local and state levels, but ongoing debate exists on their effectiveness and mixed results regarding policy and fiscal outcomes.

With notable support from USTL, there is a rising initiative to impose term limits in states such as South Carolina and Alaska, with recent changes. Support for this idea is incredibly high at 82-87%. Despite this, federal term limits are more challenging to achieve due to needing a constitutional amendment, something difficult to obtain given congressional opposition and the Thornton decision. While these factors are more prevalent at the state and local level, there is little consensus on their effect on corruption, with some arguing that there are unintended outcomes, such as increased lobbyist influence. The lack of conviction of long-serving politicians like Biden and Pelosi, while facing charges alongside men like Madigan and Menendez, indicates that there is far more complexity in this topic than is presented.

Term limits reduce corruption when paired with complementary reforms, such as stronger ethics laws and campaign finance reform. Visit http://www.termlimits.com for more information on why they support term limits.

I can look into specific legislators, examine particular cases, state-level term limit policies, or even analyze data on corruption trends! Just let me know what you would like me to work on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjQJGk601dk

.