In his column today, John Hood of the John Locke Foundation is calling for term limits, and I'm inclined to support the idea.
The first argument to dismiss, right off the bat, is the silly suggestion that term limits are a violation of popular sovereignty because they deprive voters of the representation of their choice. Popular sovereignty, democracy, republicanism – whatever your preferred term for the principle of representative government, it is difficult to argue that term limits are antithetical to it because the vast majority of voters, of every persuasion, support term limits. It is rational and consistent to vote for your incumbent within the current electoral structure and support term limits to ensure rotation in office, including your incumbent and all the rest.
But if We the People have the rights to adopt such a policy - and we do - then surely we should also be able to adopt a policy that eliminates all corporate money from elections and public policy. That is, we should be able to say as a collective that corporations do not enjoy the same inalienable rights as human beings, but rather, can be restricted in their financial influence. We should be able to change our laws so that no corporation may contribute to candidates or elected officials in any way. Nor may they contribute to organizations that contribute to candidates.
So Mr. Hood, I'll see your term limits and raise you the elimination of corporate contributions.