• thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Did you really just call a 90 year old woman who was in the Senate for 31 years a “revolving door”

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      Unironically this would help. The ones enforcing regulatory capture are the ones who have been in their positions the longest.

      If the corporations have to constantly introduce themselves to the new politicians, it greatly increases the cost and lowers the lifetime value of the money they’re spending on lobbying.

      • SandbagTiara2816@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        It might help, but not in isolation, imo. I think there is value to both having new people with new ideas as well as having people with knowledge of how institutions work. If you have entirely new representatives every term, then everyone is learning things anew (from the corporate lobbyists who are their same jobs for every legislative session). If we did away with private money in politics and publicly funded campaigns, then I think the case for strict term limits is stronger

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          I mean obviously the best solution is to remove private money entirely. It’s disgustingly biased against the majority of citizens.

          A one term limit is silly, for the reason you mention. But 3-4 seems plenty to get a mix of seasoned representatives and new ideas.