The solution is to vote the bums out.

Moreover, if we didn’t have presidential term limits, Obama would still be president.

of this. Maybe he is not. I shall not comment on his motives precisely because I'm not in his head.

But I will comment on the result of that policy. It is a bad policy result (unless you are a very wealthy person who can fund lobbyists and buy influence with campaign contributions and SuperPACs -- then it is good for you).

Nt

You’re right. Term limits would only make the problem of money in politics worse, but I’ve heard people argue the exact opposite so like you said, Steyer might not be a bad actor here.

And the inexperience of new members makes them more dependent on both professional staffers and lobbyists.

Dumb idea!

I think term limits creates corruption as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

...long ago, that if there were term limits, we would not have Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

accidental gov of illinois.
he made his political chops changing our charming system of having 3 st reps from each district. convinced people that it would save big bucks, but we lost some great fringe players who were often interestingwe had a few areas that always had one communist party member, and a few socialists. and always a few strong women.
after the change, the staff ran everything.
and the speaker gained an iron grip.

i always think about that when someone says term limits.
and i also remember that for the thugs, teddy kennedy was their poster boy.

we do have term limits... they are called elections.

At the outset - I get that the voters in a district can throw a candidate out any election cycle they want.

That said, voters in a lot of districts get lazy and rubber stamp the incumbent. The incumbents, once so entrenched, are wooed by a variety of special interests. Once the incumbent (regardless of the party) gets into the pocket of the special interests, they become even more entrenched and less inclined to do what is best and more inclined to go with the folks writing the campaign checks and paying for whatever other perks they can legally (and illegally) supply.

I'm not for super short limits, but I think 9 terms in the House; 3 terms in the Senate, and 24 years on the SCOTUS are plenty. That's just me - not Tom Steyer.

...is enough to insure enough stability that you're not unnecessarily tossing out experience and wisdom, while also serving as a check on policy being derived from sheer inertia and the continued power of those already in the pockets of special interests.