Another lawmaker sees the error of his ways on term limits

It’s a familiar scene: an enthusiastic politician runs for Congress on a “citizen legislature” platform. He or she says we need to return the political process “to the people” and swears that, if elected, he or she will return home after serving three terms.

There are, of course, some variations on this story. Sometimes it’s a Democrat, though usually it’s a Republican. Sometimes it’s a pledge to serve a maximum of three terms, sometimes it’s more.

But over the last few years, these stories almost always end the same way — with the lawmaker breaking his or her word.

The latest example is Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) who was elected to the House as part of the huge Republican class of 1994 (you remember: Newt Gingrich, Contract with America, etc.). A decade ago, LoBiondo railed against “career politicians” and told voters he’d serve no more than six terms.

“We serve with the knowledge we will go back into the real world and live under the laws we passed,” LoBiondo said in March 1995, after signing a prospective pledge of resignation to the House clerk. As recently as last fall, LoBiondo showed no signs of wavering on his promise, telling reporters in October, “I’ve not changed my position. My position is six terms.”

Yesterday, he changed his mind and announced he’d keep running indefinitely.

Saying he has “consulted with the people of my district, with my fellow elected officials here in New Jersey and with my conscience,” LoBiondo said he was breaking his pledge.

“It seemed to me at that time term limits would be a good idea for the nation,” he said. “I didn’t fully understand what personal relationships and seniority could mean to the district.”

Well, of course he didn’t fully understand what being a congressman was all about, he was naïve about politics and the process in Washington.

I don’t really blame LoBiondo for wanting to stay in Congress, at least not any more than any of the other half-dozen lawmakers from ’94 who broke identical pledges to the voters. I’ve always opposed term limits and found them to be an absurd solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. As far as I’m concerned we already have congressional term limits — they’re called elections.

With this in mind, I do blame LoBiondo for making the promise in the first place. It was easy for him to use pseudo-populist rhetoric about term limits “empowering” voters, too easy in fact. Now that he’s actually been in Washington and begun to appreciate what lawmakers can do for their districts, LoBiondo wants to stick around for a while. I wish he’d realized this before touting the benefits of silly concepts like term limits 10 years ago.

Instead of limiting his own time of service, LoBiondo has placed his fate in the hands of his constituents, who will ultimately decide if they want to keep him or not. Hmm, letting voters choose their representatives instead of artificial, government imposed restrictions on how long a lawmaker can serve in government. What a concept.