Nelson 1

Sam Nelson
ENGL 134-41
This paper was very rewarding to write. It forced me to evaluate my stance on a subject,
research the subject, and present a thorough argument on said subject. You have to find
information to back up every claim you make. Finding this information from a large variety of
sources is a very long and tiring process. Often, I wanted to just make a claim and provide no
evidence that it was true. However, it was very satisfying to finish the paper knowing that I had
presented points that were backed by valid sources.
I spent a lot of time thinking about, and shaping, the way in which I wanted to present
information. I wanted to define the scope of the argument, present the argument, and dissect the
counter argument. This process leaves no doubt in the readers mind and my mind that the
stance I am taking, is the correct stance. For me, the most convincing part of a persuasive essay
is the statistics and numbers that are involved with the issue. These tangible points are almost
inarguable and can greatly bolster a perspective. I tried to utilize statistics, numbers, and
percentages to add a large amount of ethos to my point of view. I tried to break things down into
a logical process to provide logos, and this helped develop my pathos as well. Overall, I tried to
address every minor and major point involved, and provide backup to my claims. I am happy
with the result and I am reassured of my stance on the matter of congressional term limits.

Nelson 2
A Necessary Ending
Within the last year, 74 surveys have been conducted to test the congressional job
approval - 74 separate times for U.S. citizens to express their opinions - and out of all those
surveys not a single one reported an approval rating above 20% (Congressional Job Approval).
The average approval rating hovered around 13% (Congressional Job Approval). This means
that about one out of every ten people actually enjoy what is happening within Congress. This
statistic might seem quite shocking, but the fact is Congress hasnt had an approval rating over
30% for the last six years (Congressional Job Approval). Discontent with Congress is not a
new issue, and yet nothing has changed. In the last election, 96% percent of congressmen
running for re-election won their campaigns (Glassman and Wilhelm 6). In addition, 22% of
Congress members have been serving for over sixteen years (Glassman and Wilhelm 8). These
numbers are the exact opposite of what would be expected with the low approval rating. If
change is going to come, there would need to be a revolution to curb voter apathy. While this
would be an ideal outcome, it is very hard to accomplish and would not stay constant throughout
time. Instead, a permanent solution could come through term limits on Congress. More
specifically, a two six-year term limit for senators and a four two-year term limit for
representatives. These term limits would bring a positive impact to the United States by creating
a more productive Congress, decreasing corruption, and diversifying the membership.
Term limits would create a sense of urgency and personal importance within Congress.
Over the last few years, the term career politician has become an increasingly popular term.
The idea is that a Congress member would hold their position throughout their working life. A
seat in the Senate or the House is no longer thought of as a temporary job, but rather one that
could last for well over thirty years (Glassman and Wilhelm 2). This conception creates a

Nelson 3
dangerous atmosphere in Congress. When there is no limit on terms, seniority becomes a valued
trait for members. Those who have served more terms are determined to be better at their jobs
and are therefore more qualified for positions like speaker of the House (Reed and Schansberg
84). Usually, this would follow logical sense. Those who have managed to maintain their jobs
should be liked by the public and should be good at their job. However, the approval rating and
re-election rate immediately dispel this conception. Members who are not liked can still work
their way into the senior ranks of Congress; this creates a negative influence on other members.
There is no incentive to try to properly represent your ideals and area if you can almost always
get re-elected (Glassman and Wilhelm 6). Members can put in minimal effort and not have to
worry about the outcome. Term limits would transfer where importance should be placed. The
speaker of the House, and other important positions, would no longer be determined by seniority.
These positions would come about from a member who well represents their party, ideals, and
serving area. Each member would then have an equal chance at obtaining a leadership role.
Emphasis would be allocated to hard work and effort, not length of tenure.
The counter argument to term limits focuses on why a set length of time would
marginalize members. It argues that term limits would mean that members would not have
enough time to accomplish tasks and that they would become more concerned with finding a
follow up job. However, this argument can be proven to be invalid. Eight years is now the
maximum length of time a president can serve (Korzi 39). Both senators and representatives can
serve for the same length of time, and senators could serve an additional four. There is no
question that presidents accomplish and handle a vast amount of issues during their stay in
office. Franklin Roosevelt got elected to office four times and after his presidency, a
constitutional amendment was passed to limit the presidential office to two terms (Korzi 40). If

Nelson 4
senators and representatives hold their position for eight years, then they will be able to confront
the same amount of issues that the president will in his terms. They will have almost a decade to
make their mark in Congress. These members will also treat their time with great significance.
They have a set length of time to make that impression, so every day and vote will carry more
weight. Without term limits, Congress members dont have to worry about missing votes. They
have years upon years to make up for that vote and leave an impression upon the United States.
With a set deadline, members will be encouraged to bring an invigorated performance from the
beginning. A post-congress job might be a concern near the very end of their career, however
members will want to try to make an ending impression. As a congressmen, finding a job wont
be terribly difficult and leaving a legacy within Congress will take a higher priority. Term limits
will bring the best out of its serving members. The limits will also decrease the amount of
corruption that can be found within Congress.
Limiting time within Congress would decrease the influence of money within the
political realm. Currently, powerful businesses and agencies hold a substantial grasp over any
policy. They hire lobbyists to influence congressmen and they can fund campaigns for those who
are seeking spots in the House or Senate (Greenberg Online). Essentially, they are providing
members with all they need: money and information. The businesses and agencies create ties that
keep a congressmen rooted in office. Of course, the congressmen then have to provide some type
of reciprocation. They pay their thanks by allowing bias to enter their voting (Giles and Page
572). They transition from a representation of the people to a representation of special interests.
In a study conducted by Martin Giles and Benjamin Page, the policy preference of an average
citizen had an impact of .03 out of 1 on Congress (571). The policy preference of an economic
elite had an impact of .76 out of 1 (Giles and Page 571). The dependent variable is the policy

Nelson 5
outcome, coded 1 if the proposed policy change took place within four years of the survey date
and 0 if it did not (Giles and Page 571). The elites have over 25 times more influence than
regular citizens. Residents in the United States have relatively zero effect on the legislative
process. This is a tragedy to a country that prides itself on being a democratic republic. Those
who are elected by the people, have no interest in what the people think. While these statistics
are bad now, they could sway greatly with term limits.
Term limits cut several of the ties created by interest groups. Currently, congressmen are
able to get re-elected so efficiently because they are provided with a large amount of money to
spend. They can outspend their opponents, and therefore win the election (Greenberg Online).
Currently, it takes about 1.6 million dollars for a seat in the House and over 10 million for a
position in Senate (Greenberg Online). With term limits, this continual re-election will be
stopped. Instead there will be many openings for new positions, and this means that there will be
an overall increase in the number of people running for office. The big businesses and agencies
will not be able to select and fund their ideal candidates for the open positions. The result will be
an increase of senators and representatives that lack outside obligations. They will be free to
select a decision that they truly support.
On the contrary, it has been argued that these new members will be easily susceptible to
lobbyists. They will not know what to do and will be readily convinced by those who appear to
be well versed in specific subjects. It is true that lobbyists will still hold a strong role in
Congress, but their role will be diminished. Lobbyists can currently build connections and
reliability with members of the House and Senate (Greenberg Online). They know how they will
vote, and they only need to focus on certain individuals for each bill. Term limits will create a
constant cycle of new members. This means that lobbyists will have to try to continually develop

Nelson 6
new ties. They will not have older members that would be a guaranteed vote for the outcome
they desire. Lobbyists will also need to focus on a greater amount of members to try to convince
for each bill. They will be taking on a substantially larger workload that will slow them down
and as a result, slow down corruption. Term limits wont bring an absolute end to corruption, but
it will provide an effective way to avoid and make it harder for corruption to take place. With
these term limits, we could start to see a shift in power to the people. It would become a much
closer representation of the people.
Congress would contain a diverse membership that better depicts the general population
with term limits. Throughout all of the 114 Congresses, the average member was extraordinarily
easy to predict: White and male (Manning 2). Differences in gender and ethnicity were very
uncommon; only in the past few years has there been a little surge in diversity. In fact, the last
elected Congress has the biggest range yet. The House and the Senate boast a composition of
20% female members (Manning 10). The Senate contains an impressive 6% non-white
membership, and the House is doing a little better with 20% non-white membership (Manning
10). Four out of every five members is white and male. In addition, the average age of the
Congress member is 59 (Manning 5). The demographics of Congress are considerably different
from those of the overall United States. They dont represent the ethnicity, age, and gender that is
spread throughout the country. Again, this wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing except for the fact
that Congress has such low approval ratings. The current, and past, memberships have a limited
perspective that could be expanded with a wider array of senators and representatives.
An expansion would allow Congress to consider all viewpoints on a bill and then make a
decision that is catered to the whole, not just a certain segment. Term limits would create the
needed opportunity for minorities to run and win elections. This simply follows the logic that

Nelson 7
these limits will constantly create vacancies in the Senate and the House. There will be fewer
Congress members running for re-election which means that potential politicians wont need to
spend vast amounts of money to even compete. There will be more availability and a cheaper
means to reach office. It has been argued, that those who could bring diversity to Congress
wouldnt even run. However, the want for change is more prominent than ever before. The main
obstacle in between new members and a seat in Congress is the re-election rate. If this is taken
away, these candidates can become congressmen (Fett and Ponder 215). They will recognize this
opportunity and capitalize due to the desire for change. Citizens will want to better represent
their ethnicities, ages, and genders (Swan 801). Term limits can truly create a Congress by the
people, for the people.
Dissatisfaction hangs in the air and seeps its way into the majority of homes. The desire
for change is unquestionable. It is evident that there is a prominent flaw in our current Congress.
It is easy to imagine the perfect Senate and House, but the route to that perfection is considerably
harder to see. Term limits are the base off of which that route can be built. It was shown that
these limits help Congress members focus on the importance of each bill. In addition, they
provide a means to fight against and work around the developed impurities. Lastly, term limits
create constant vacancies which allows for new membership. At the moment, Congress is just a
stage on which elites and powerful corporations conduct business. The supposed senators and
representatives happily turn a blind eye as long as a handsome reward continually comes their
way. Congress is the last place where corruption should be so easily intertwined. The Senate and
the House have developed into flaw-filled institutions. The restoration of this impactful
government branch starts with putting an eight year limit on representatives and a twelve year
limit on senators. Congress could once again be a pinnacle of the United States. The Senate and

Nelson 8
House could be an accurate portrayal of its residents. Term limits could bring the needed change.
With these limits, we could see the steadily decreasing approval rate, finally change direction.

Works Cited
Brudnick, Ida A. " Congressional Salaries and Allowances: In Brief Congressional Research
Service (2014): 13. Web. 12 Mar. 2016.
"Congressional Job Approval." RealClearPolitics. 15 Feb. 2016. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.
Fett, Patrick J, and Ponder, Daniel E. "Congressional Term Limits, State Legislative Term Limits
and Congressional Turnover: A Theory of Change." PS: Political Science and Politics,
26.2 (1993): 211-216. 20 Feb. 2016.
Gilens, Martin, and Page, Benjamin I. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest
Groups, and Average Citizens." Perspectives on Politics, 12.3 (2014): 564-581. 19 Feb.
2016.
Glassman, Matthew E, and Wilhelm, Amber H. " Congressional Careers: Service tenure and
patterns of member service, 1789-2015."Congressional Research Service (2015): 16.
Web. 21 Feb. 2016.
Greenberg, Dan. "Term Limits: The only way to clean up Congress." The Heritage Foundation.
10 Aug. 1994. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

Nelson 9
Korzi, Michael J. "Theorizing Presidential Tenure: The Difficult Case of FDR's Fourth
Term." Congress & the Presidency, 35.2 (2008): 39-64. 22 Feb. 2016.
Madison, James. Federalist No. 10: "The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard
Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection." New York Daily Advertiser, November 22,
1787.
Manning, Jennifer E. "Membership of the 114th Congress: A Profile." Congressional Research
Service (2015): 12. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.
Reed, Robert W, and Schansberg, Eric D. "An Analysis of the Impact of Congressional Term
Limits." Economic Inquiry, 32.1 (1994): 79-91. 20 Feb. 2016.
Swan, George S. "The Political Economy of Congressional Term Limits: U.S. Term Limits, Inc.
V. Thornton." Alabama Law Review, 47.3 (1996): 775-824. 19 Feb. 2016.
Annotated Bibliography
Gilens, Martin, and Page, Benjamin I. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest
Groups, and Average Citizens." Perspectives on Politics, 12.3 (2014): 564-581. 19 Feb.
2016.
This source utilizes survey and mathematics to assess how congress decides to vote on
policies. Specifically, it shows how what groups or people have the greatest influence over the
decision making progress. While the paper is meant to be a representation of numbers, it does
argue that average citizens have extremely small say in what policies are passed in congress. One
specific survey shows that have the regular citizen has relatively zero impact on the
congressmen. The paper also highlights the power of economic elites and big corporations. These

Nelson 10
entities have a large influence in congress and considerably more say than the average citizen.
The paper emphasizes this gap, although it does not have a main focal point on how to change
this situation.
Personally, this paper was astonishing. I knew that congress had a large amount of
corruption, however I did not know the extent. It is shocking to know that congress does not
listen to almost anyones stance on a subject. This information propels the argument for term
limits. By putting actual numbers on the influences within congress, it becomes evident that a
change is needed. This paper cemented my stance on the need for term limits.

Greenberg, Dan. "Term Limits: The only way to clean up Congress." The Heritage Foundation.
10 Aug. 1994. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.
This author took on a widespread approach to argue the effectiveness of term limits. He
starts off his argument by providing a brief history of term limits and the current support it
carries today. He then presented how term limits could benefit the United States and the
Legislative branch. The focal point of this section was the continual involvement of fresh
politicians. After this section, Greenberg concluded by addressing the common counter
arguments. He showed where each argument was incorrect and described the actual change that
would be produced. This source emphasized the necessity for new congress members. Greenberg
would continually argue that fresh faces would bring about more modern ideas while getting rid
of most of the corruption within congress.

Nelson 11
This source reinforced and put words to some of the ideas that I had originally developed
when it came to term limits. Greenberg had a weak initial argument for term limits, however his
counter arguments provided a lot of good content. The main takeaway from this source is
Greenbergs argument concerning corruption. He explained the significance of having a lot of
money when campaigning and the control of lobbyists. Through this description, I was able to
extend my argument addressing corruption.

Nelson 12
From above, a giant room in the shape of a semicircle spreads out underneath you. The
room has a central presentation area and is surrounded by desks and chairs. All the seats are
filled with well-dressed persons that carry an air of importance. They remain intensely focused
on a speaker that commands the central presentation platform. The speaker presents his
argument, take questions, and then steps down to be replaced by a new speaker. This process
continues with the new speaker and so forth. A civilized debate is underway in this room; an
enlargement of perspectives. The topic of this debate carries a great weight as it could soon be
the law of the land. Each speaker recognizes this fact and utilizes their individual time to try to
sway those who hold a differing stance. This debate process continues for hours on end; the topic
must be properly dissected and analyzed from all viewpoints. Eventually, a general agreement is
reached on the issue and a vote is held. Members of the room leave in a state of content; knowing
that they made the best possible decision for the country they represent. Soon, the very topic that
they were debating could be the law of the country.
Congress is one of the pinnacles of the United States Government. The Legislative
branch of our Government; a necessity to the operations of this country. The decisions made here
effect each and every one of the inhabitants of America. With this prestige, the members of
Congress have to meet vast expectations. According to James Madison, Congress should be, a
chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country
(Madison Federalist no.10). These members should be the best the best of us; role models to all.
When many people envision Congress, they see the semicircle room, they see packed
debates, and they see these prestigious members. Schools and citizens alike flock to Congress to
see the inner workings of the country. They want to get a glimpse of this fabled place that they
have dreamt about.

Nelson 13
A visit to Congress might be a little different than originally imagined. For starters, the
packed semicircle room at the Senate will almost never be packed. Photos are often manipulated
to make the senate look well
attended (Greenberg Online). In
reality, senators will not often be
found spending a large amount of
their time in the Senate Chamber.
Instead, they will be off attending
to their own business, or in their personal offices (Russel Senate Office Building Online). In
fact, these senators almost seem like they want to avoid interaction. Senators could walk from
their offices to the Chamber, however most of them use an underground tunnel that connects the
two buildings (Russel Senate Office Building Online). The government website that describes
this tunnel states that it was built because, senators needed to travel frequently between their
offices and committee rooms and the Senate floor (Russel Senate Office Building Online).
Senators could simply walk with everyone else above ground, but according to this website they
do it so frequently that a tunnel had to be built. The members of the Senate cant seem to be
found at debates, on sidewalks, or just about anywhere else. They can simply stay in their office,
vote when they need to, and open the blinds if they want to see a little bit of sunshine. However,
these Senators are the people we elected they represent the best of us and while they might be
reclusive, they should still be able to make trustworthy voting decisions.
Senators and Representatives serve for a local area; they represent the people, culture,
and ideas of their section of the country. As leaders of their respective communities,
congressmen should have the respect of their peers. Most locals do seem to enjoy their

Nelson 14
congressmen: 96% of congressmen running for re-election won in the last campaign (Glassman
and Wilhelm 6). This means that congressmen are conveying local opinions at a Federal level.
Martin Giles and Benjamin Page conducted a study to test just how well the average citizen is
represented in Congress (571). They followed proposed policy changes over the course of four
years (Giles and Page 571). If the average citizen wanted a policy to pass and it passed within the
time frame, the bill was given a score of 1 (Giles and Page 571). If the bill did not pass then it
was given a score of 0 (Giles and Page 571). In total, the score averaged out to .03 out of 1 (Giles
and Page 571). Residents in the United States have relatively zero effect on the legislative
process. Senators and Representatives are literally doing nothing to give their people more power
within the Government. This is the exact opposite of what would be expected with the re-election
rate. Congressmen should be catering to the area and people that helped them advance to such a
meaningful position. These numbers beg the question: To whom is Congress catering?
In the same study as mentioned earlier, Giles and Page also tested how well Congress
represents economic elites and large corporations (571). The average score for this demographic
came out to .76 out of 1 (Giles and Page 571). This group has over 25 times more influence than
the average citizen. If these elites and business want a policy passed, it will most likely be
passed. Congressmen want to make sure this portion of the population is satisfied with policies.
These elites and corporations are providing something extra that makes them vastly more
important to Congress.
Congressmen are paid an average of $174,000 a year as found in a recent study on
Congressional salaries (Brudnick 3). Representatives spend an average of about 2 million dollars
to win an election, and Senators spend an average of about 10 million dollars to win an election
(Greenberg Online). With their salaries, congressmen dont have nearly enough money to

Nelson 15
continually run for re-election or even just one election. Members of the House and Senate are
lacking the millions of dollars that are required. Luckily, they seem to have made some good
friends with handsome sums of money. The very same economic elites and large corporations
fund political campaigns and then some. Over the last ten years, elites and businesses from
different industries have invested over 15 billion dollars (Greenberg Online). That is about 4.1
million dollars a day. Now, not all of this money goes to congress, but members still receive a
good portion of this money (Greenberg Online). With that amount of money, it is very hard for
congressmen to just say thanks through a hand-written note. Instead, they can utilize their pen in
a different manner: Voting on bills that help these investors. Thats really what these corporations
and elites are doing; they are investing money to see some type of positive income.
Money has fundamentally changed Congress. It changes the magnitude of political
campaigns, the bills that are passed, and the original image of Congress. People no longer
imagine civilized, respectful forums. Instead, they see manipulation and corruption intertwined
with the House and Senate. An online database collects and uses various polls that test the
Congressional Job Approval; the data over the past year revealed an approval rating of 13%
(Congressional Job Approval). As a whole, the United States population strongly disapproves
of the work in Congress. They dislike what bills are passed, and they want change. Yet, at a local
level citizens seem to love their congressmen (96% re-election rate). However, with the support
of wealthy companies and individuals, congressmen can outspend opponents and portray
themselves in a good light. They can essentially buy their way back into the House or Senate.
With this level of dissatisfaction and corruption, it is hard to see a bright future for Congress.
The approval rating could start to rise with a major overhaul to Congress. This would
come in the form of term limits on Representatives and Senators. Specifically, a two six-year

Nelson 16
term limit for senators and a four two-year term limit for representatives. These term limits
would counteract the developed impurities in Congress.
Term limits would restore civilized debates and interest in policies. In an analysis on the
114th congress, it was found that 22% of Congress members have been serving for over sixteen
years with one Representative reaching 50 years of service (Glassman and Wilhelm 8). Current
members can serve for as long as they would like while receiving special treatment from
corporations. They dont have to care about bills or policies, they just have to make sure to vote.
Term limits force congressmen to recognize the importance of their time in office. No one runs
for Congress just to enjoy the money that comes with the job. Before these congressmen reach
the corruption in Congress, they put aside a chunk of their life to campaign for a spot they might
not win. This commitment is not obtained without some desire to be a part of the political
system. They run for Congress to inspire and create change. These term limits will make
members realize that they only have so much time to make a difference in Government. The
desire to make a positive impact will be enhanced, and this will make corruption easier to avoid.
Limits will motivate members to attend debates and convey their message. They wont have their
entire lives to try to pass a certain bill. They will have 8-12 years to put forth their best work, and
this will bring out enhanced effort from members. Senators and Representatives will become a
more integral part of the Legislative Branch. In addition, term limits would decrease the power
of money.
Term limits would stop the continual funding of campaigns that leads to constant reelection. With limits, Senators would only be allowed to run for re-election once and
Representatives could only run three times. This decrease would greatly cut back on the amount
of money that goes into the campaigns. In addition, when congressmen reach their limits they

Nelson 17
will leave a vacant spot. This can be filled by a politician who wont have to spend ridiculous
amounts of money just to compete with an incumbent. This means two things: More people will
be willing to run for congress and it will require less money to win a campaign. In a judicial
defense of term limits, George Swan presented data that showed that many potential
congressmen would wait for an incumbent to appear weak before starting a campaign for their
position (Swan 801). If there isnt even an incumbent to run again, these politicians will
capitalize on the opportunity for office. When they campaign, they wont be going against
anyone that is funded by large corporations. They will be able to spend a reasonable amount of
money to win a seat in Congress. This would result in less corruption while congressmen are in
office and a fair playing field for those on the campaign trail. Senators and Representatives wont
have ties to economic elites; they will be able to vote in an independent manner. Corporate
America will no longer have a chokehold over Congress.
Discontent with Congress is growing. Money is infiltrating the Senate and the House.
The general population is being ignored while the upper echelon gets what they desire.
Congressmen are hiding from the public; using tunnels to travel from building to building. They
accept money from corporations while avoiding the public eye. However, people are starting to
catch on to all these underground operations. With Congress hitting an all-time low approval
rating, the general population wants change. They want to see a Congress that represents their
values and interests. This goal is obtainable. Term limits are the start to an overhaul of the
Legislative Branch. Term limits decrease corruption, allow for new membership, and motivates
members to put forth maximum effort.
Congress can be a place that contains packed debates. It can be a place where some of the
best minds gather to decide the best course for the country. It can live up to the image that people

Nelson 18
hold when they imagine Congress. The path to this image may be hard and take a few years, but
it needs to start soon. In order to fix our Legislative Branch, we need term limits.