Sen. Mitch McConnell was asked, “What do you think of term limits?”
His answer. “You already have them!”
“Oh?”
“You have them every time that you go to the polls,” the senator said coyly.
The place was Eastern Kentucky University. It was 2012. Mitch McConnell was speaking to the EKU Future Business leaders. An audience member asked what most in the room wanted to know.
That the senator failed to note the advantageous position generally held by incumbents was not surprising. Incumbents almost always have more money. A challenger needs to have deep pockets or patrons with deep pockets.
Influence from Outside on Term Limits
Democrats had reason to believe that 2014 might be their year. Their candidate, Alison Lundergan Grimes, was a rising star in the party. Funds were pouring in from California and the east, in support of her candidacy. Grimes was endorsed by the Clintons.
For a brief period, it looked like McConnell might get a primary challenge. Then businessman, later governor, Matt Bevin was the Tea Party favorite. I recall getting a scathing note from one of their members, reminding me of McConnell’s alleged corruption.
Reluctantly, I agreed with the majority of Kentucky Republicans in that he would have a better chance of defeating Grimes. Not that Mitch needed it. He reached into his war chest and soon Bevin was an afterthought.
In the general election, McConnell continued his simplistic message: Grimes was a puppet for out-of-state special interests and “Bay area liberalism.” Money, both his and friendly PACs, made the difference.
Convention of States Supporters Found Term Limits a Non-Starter
When the Convention of States organizers came to Kentucky, they realized that “term limits” would never fly. As one supporter phrased, “Mitch McConnell simply has too much power. Nobody here is interested in including term limits in the position.”
Why?
Fairly easy answer. How would Kentucky benefit from replacing a Senate Majority Leader with a freshman?
Arkansans faced the same quandary in the 1960s with Congressman Wilbur Mills. People in his district loathed him. But he chaired the House Ways and Means Committee, controlling vast amounts of money. Did the state really want to replace him with a freshman?
2020 Election Changed Many Points of View
The existing paradigm did a 180-degree shift when McConnell refused to take the lead in the alleged election fraud allegation.
Donald Trump carried Kentucky by 28 points. The president made a special trip to campaign for McConnell, who faced a surprisingly tough challenge from Amy McGrath, who had been endorsed by Bernie Sanders.
Trump’s last-minute campaigning turned a toss-up into a 10-point win for McConnell. Constituents felt betrayed. Suddenly, terms limits sounded like a splendid idea.
I recall then-Texas Governor Rick Perry’s suggestion that we abolish the 17th amendment, which would allow the state senates to select the state’s federal senators, which is the method the founders originally specified.
Perry’s argument was well-founded, “If bureaucrats know that a politician is going to be term-limited, they’ll just wink at him and essentially stall until his term ends.” In other words, term limits would not work UNLESS bureaucrats were also term-limited. Which might not be a bad idea. But it would be complicated.
An Uphill Argument
At first glance, it sounds like an unpopular concept. No longer would U.S. senators be elected in a direct primary. We would return to the original standard: “The state senates would make the call.”
Benjamin Franklin used the analogy of “pouring hot tea into a saucer before drinking it.”
America was founded as a Republic. The concept of allowing our state senators to choose our federal senators goes together with retaining control at the state level. In other words, making it more difficult for out-of-state special interests to buy a senate seat.
In some states, such as Colorado where Democrats hold a 21-14 lead in the state senate, it would make little difference. However, in states such as Montana, Ohio, and Wisconsin, where Republicans hold overwhelming majorities in their senates, it’s a good bet that Sherrod Brown, John Tester and Tammy Baldwin would not survive the 2024 general election. Ditto for the two Georgia seats gained by Democrats in the 2020 run-offs.
What about rogue incumbent senators such as Mitch McConnell, who gave his own constituents the “finger” in 2020?
The founders realized that federal senators were granted enormous power. They concluded that if outside entities, domestic or foreign were granted an opportunity to infiltrate and influence, it would come at the expense of individual state sovereignty.
This is a complicated subject that would be met with opposition from both sides of the aisle. Yet, it must be debated.
