Philip Blumel: Happy Term Limits Day, February 27th. Hi, I’m Philip Blumel. Welcome to No Uncertain Terms, the official podcast of the Term Limits Movement. This is episode number 280, published on February 23rd, 2026.
Stacey Selleck: Your sanctuary from partisan politics.
Philip Blumel: February 27th is the day back in 1951 that the 22nd Amendment was ratified. This was the amendment which established eight-year term limits on the US President. Today, Term Limits Day is the day that Americans show public support more generally for this cherished American tradition. The timing is excellent for 2026 for such a demonstration. After all, 12 states have so far officially applied for an amendment proposing convention limited to the subject of congressional term limits. And so far in 2026, there are 12 additional states considering joining the list. The so-called Term Limits convention resolution has already been approved in one chamber of the legislature in Georgia, Kansas, and South Dakota this year. The term limits movement is truly on the move. We also recently saw national public demonstrations under the banner of No Kings last year, a theme that seems to call out for term limitation.
Philip Blumel: We also heard supporters and opponents of President Trump scrapping over his comments that he might run for a third term. Well, while that partisan scrum is over, it’s a good idea to remind our politicians and journalists in a non-partisan manner that we citizens continue to support term limits. And we need to alert our neighbors, friends, and business associates about the progress that the term limits movement is making right now. How can we do that? For a list of ideas, go to termlimits.com/termlimitsday. Here are some of my favorites. The first and easiest is to basically take a selfie holding a Happy Term Limits Day sign and post it on your social media. Tag U.S. Term Limits on it. You can even include a link to the termlimits.com/petition so that the people on your list can take action. In addition, send out an email to your friends and family list.
Philip Blumel: Wish them Happy Term Limits Day and ask them if they support term limits to please sign the petition, termlimits.com/petition. You can wear a term limits T-shirt or hat. You can purchase them at termlimits.com/store and/or post a pro-term limits sign in your front yard. You can make one on your own. You can get one from a U.S. Term Limits state coordinator if you know who that is, or purchase one from our store, termlimits.com/store. If you feel particularly ambitious, it’s really fun to organize a sign wave at a busy intersection. Just grab a couple friends and make some homemade signs like “Honk if you love term limits” and enjoy the camaraderie of public support while helping drivers get in the spirit of the holiday. Of course, if you receive any social media posts from our organization or your friends or neighbors that are involved in the term limits movement, forward them on. Let’s remind everyone we’re here. We have a lot to celebrate in 2026.
Philip Blumel: Next, another reason to recognize Term Limits Day is in memory of a term limits hero that we lost on February 10th, Ed Crane. Ed was best known as founder and longtime president of the Cato Institute, a non-partisan Washington policy institute or think tank. In the early 1990s, Crane was an influential player in the first wave of term limits activism that led to 23 states limiting the terms of their congressional delegations via the ballot initiative. In the midst of that debate, Crane’s Cato Institute published, and he was the co-editor of, an important book, “The Politics and Law of Term Limits” with Roger Pilon. Crane also testified before Congress in favor of congressional term limits in 1995 before the Supreme Court shot down the congressional term limits laws passed by the states. After the Supreme Court case later that year, Crane’s Cato Institute continued to publish work helpful to the cause of term limitation, including some landmark studies and as a recommendation in Cato’s periodic Handbooks for Congress.
Philip Blumel: But the classic study which I still refer to in my public talks is called Term Limits and the Republican Congress by Aaron Steelman, published in 1998. It looks at spending by Republicans. Now, why pick on Republicans? Well, Republicans as a group promise fiscal restraint while on the campaign trail, and spending is something that can be measured. So the study looked at the spending patterns of GOP Congress members by tenure and found out that the newbies tend to stick with their rhetoric. But after eight to 10 years, the spending patterns were indistinguishable from veteran Congress members. So this, I point out, is some mathematical support for Ronald Reagan’s famous comment that before the election, a politician sees a swamp in Washington, but after they’ve been a while, well, they see it as more of a Jacuzzi.
Philip Blumel: But the idea of the study isn’t to show that term limits result in fiscal restraint, but that term limits create better incentives for politicians to stick to their word and not succumb to the temptations of power. That is, it improves their incentives. Now, that’s not to say that term limits don’t encourage fiscal restraint, but that’s a different study. Now, Ed Crane served on the U.S. Term Limits board for many years as well, so he directly helped in steering the term limits movement beyond providing intellectual ammunition. I’m glad Ed got to see the current surge in momentum in the term limits movement. If this project succeeds, it’ll be in great part due to Ed’s efforts in laying the groundwork. Rest in peace, Ed, and thank you.
Speaker 3: This is a public service announcement.
Philip Blumel: In 1994, founder and president of the Cato Institute, Ed Crane, appeared on the TV program Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg. The subject of the program was “What’s Wrong with Congress?” and Crane appeared as a member of a panel of representatives of think tanks describing the problem and providing solutions.
Ed Crane: And the second thing I think that’s critical is congressional term limitation. 80% of Americans favor term limits. Congress hates the idea, but I think we need a citizen legislature. I think that’s what the founders had in mind, a representative legislature that’s in touch with the people and not the professional politicians we have now. So six years in the House, 12 years in the Senate. That’s the majority of the 15 states that have limited the terms of their delegations, have those constraints. I think that would get a different kind of people seeking office.
Philip Blumel: Next, the momentum towards term limits is making itself felt more than just the U.S. Congress. In San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors voted seven to four to place a measure on the citywide June ballot to tighten their term limits. Yes, tighten their term limits. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors already has an eight-year consecutive term limit, but after serving two terms, supervisors can run again. If the initiative passes, this will change. After two terms, you’ll be out. Proponents say that the consecutive term limits are not enough to prevent a handful of incumbents from cycling on and off the board to continue to dominate the board with the backing of the local special interests. In the words of supporter Bilal Mahmood on social media, “This ballot measure will do three simple but essential things: establish a clear lifetime term limit for mayor and supervisors, close a loophole that allows politicians to step aside and run again indefinitely, and give voters a voice in charting their own destiny.”
Philip Blumel: Next, let’s go back to Ed Crane. In 1994, in the wake of successful ballot initiatives to term limit state legislators and congressional delegations in 23 states, the Republicans returned to win the U.S. House for the first time in 40 years on the strength of their Contract with America. Now, in this contract, the Republicans promised a vote on a constitutional amendment on congressional term limits, and they provided it. However, they didn’t just have one vote, they had several. That way, all the politicians had the opportunity to vote yes on a term limits bill so they could brag about it back at home, but without any fear that a term limits bill would actually pass.
Philip Blumel: Also, the leadership’s favored bills called for a 12-year term limit in the House, whereas most of the term limits passed by the voters in the states were of the six to eight year variety. As this counter-revolution, you might call it, was occurring, Cato Institute President, Ed Crane, was called to testify before the Subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 25, 1995. The subject was one of the sellout bills. No audio or video of this testimony exists as far as I know, but we have the transcript and it deserves to be shared in full. And so I will do so to finish off this episode. This isn’t just nostalgia or just a memoriam for Ed. All of this information is relevant to our current battle as it was back in 1995. So here we go.
Philip Blumel: “Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee on the subject of congressional term limitation, an issue that is essential to the restoration of public confidence in the institution of Congress. It is also an issue that I have supported for many years, actively so beginning in 1990 with Proposition 140 in California and as a member of the boards of Americans to Limit Congressional Terms and now U.S. Term Limits. I am also the co-editor of the Cato Institute book, “The Politics and Law of Term Limits.” We know from election results and from poll after poll that Americans overwhelmingly support congressional term limitation.”
Philip Blumel: “About 80% of Americans support the concept, and pollsters find the breadth of that support remarkable. Republicans, Democrats, and independents, men and women, African Americans and whites, virtually any demographic group you can name supports term limits by huge margins. The only negative poll I am aware of was conducted by the Gallup Organization a year or so ago. It found that a majority of congressional aides, corporate lobbyists, and mid-level federal bureaucrats as a group opposed congressional term limits. And that, I would suggest, is a finding that would only intensify public support for the idea.”
Philip Blumel: What I would like to do today is to make the case for real term limits, by which I mean three terms in the House of Representatives and two terms in the Senate. Virtually all supporters of term limits, including those in Congress, favor two-term limits in the Senate. The conflict is over the House limits. A Luntz poll shows supporters of the concept favor three terms over six terms in the House by a margin of 82% to 14%. Indeed, a 1993 poll by Fabrizio McLaughlin Associates found that a solid plurality of Americans actually favor only a two-term limit for the House. Within Congress, the majority of Term Limits supporters favor six terms, although most of the freshman class swept into office by what some observers believe is a sea change in American politics favor three terms.
Philip Blumel: With that, by way of background, I would like to make the point that the debate over three terms versus six terms is not mere quibbling over a technical issue. It is significant and substantive. It is a question of the people’s term limits versus the politicians’ disingenuous limits. The political energy behind the term limit movement is predicated on the need for a citizen legislature. Americans believe that career legislators and professional politicians have created a gaping chasm between themselves and their government. For democracy to work, it must be representative democracy, a government of, by, and for the people. That means a citizen legislature. To achieve a citizen legislature, it is imperative that our representatives in Congress, particularly the House, which the Framers clearly intended to be the arm of government closest to the people, be not far removed from the private sector, which after all, they are elected to represent.
Philip Blumel: As Rhode Island’s Roger Sherman wrote at the time of our nation’s founding, “Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place which might differ from those of their constituents.” In the era of year-round legislative sessions, the only way to achieve that objective is through term limits. Three terms for the House is preferable to six terms for a variety of reasons which I’ll discuss below. The most important one, however, deals with the question of who seeks to become a member of Congress in the first place. The fact is that America is best served by a Congress populated with members who are there out of a sense of civic duty, but who would rather live their lives in the private sector holding productive jobs in civil society outside the governmental world of political society.
Philip Blumel: Such individuals might be willing to spend two, four, or even six years in Washington, but not if the legislative agenda is being set by others who gain their authority through seniority. 12-year limits, which these days amount to a mini career, do little to remove this major obstacle to a more diverse and representative group of Americans seeking office. We already have hard evidence that short three-term limits will enhance the democratic process. I mentioned Proposition 140 in California, which was passed by voters there in 1990 and limited the state assembly to three two-year terms. The 1992 assembly elections witnessed a sharp increase in the number of citizens seeking office, with a remarkable 27 freshmen elected in the 80-member lower house of the California Legislature.
Philip Blumel: An article on that freshman class, the Los Angeles Times wrote, “Among the things making the group unusual, most of them are true outsiders. For the first time in years, the freshman class does not include an abundance of former legislative aides who moved up the ladder to become members. Among the 27 are a former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, a former sheriff-coroner, a paralegal, a retired teacher, a video store owner, a businesswoman-homemaker, a child’s advocate, an interior designer, a retired sheriff’s lieutenant, and a number of businessmen, lawyers, and former city council members.” Similarly, a three-term limit for the U.S. House of Representatives will return control of the House, not just through voting, but through participation, to the people. We must make the possibility of serving in Congress a more attractive option for millions more Americans.
Philip Blumel: A second reason for the need for a three-term limit is that it ensures that the majority of those serving in the House will not be far removed from their experiences in the private sector. They will bring to the policy issues of the day the common sense and practical experience of living in the real world that will lead to decisions that are truly in the public interest. Several times in debating the issue of term limits, I’ve had the opponent suggest that limits will cost America its most experienced legislators. Invariably, such a comment draws loud applause from the audience, which should not necessarily be interpreted as disrespect for those in Congress who have been in office a long time as much as a uniquely American response to the idea of a ruling elite. Besides, many people reason, it was the experienced legislators who have brought us to the huge deficit and such undesirable episodes as the $300 billion savings and loan bailout.
Philip Blumel: The latter incident is a good example of why the common sense of Americans rooted in the private sector is needed in Congress. I could imagine a Congress picked by lottery that would have refused to pass federal deposit insurance as part of the necessary move to deregulate the thrift industry. They would have said, in effect, “Yes, do deregulate, but for goodness sake, don’t ask the American taxpayer to pay for any bad investments they make. That’s a license to speculate.” But our experienced legislators apparently thought they could repeal the laws of economics, raising the level of federal deposit insurance and extending it to the deposit rather than to the depositor, thus allowing the wealthiest people in the nation to spread their deposits around with utter indifference to the financial soundness of the institutions in which they had invested.
Philip Blumel: We’re still paying the price for such legislative hubris. A third reason for the shorter limits is related to the second, and that is that the longer one is in Congress, the more one is exposed to and influenced by the culture of ruling that permeates life within the Beltway. Groups like the National Taxpayers Union have documented the fact that the longer people serve in Congress, the bigger spenders and regulators they become. This is just as true of conservatives as it is of liberals. It is also understandable. Congressmen are surrounded in work and socially by people whose jobs are to spend other people’s money and regulate their lives. It is the unusual individual, although they do exist, who is not subtly but surely affected by this culture.
Philip Blumel: As an example of this somewhat insidious process, let me relate an incident that occurred at the first organized term limits meeting I ever attended. It was back in 1990, and Americans to Limit Congressional Terms had brought together about 40 term limit activists from around the country. We had just voted on the length of terms we thought the House should be limited to. It turned out that we favored three terms, with two terms running a very close second. I believe six terms received only one vote. At about that time, Representative Bill McCollum, who is now the lead sponsor of the six-term bill before Congress, swept into the meeting with his entourage and sat down, apparently expecting to be lavished with praise for his long and futile effort to get 12-year limits passed in the House.
Philip Blumel: Instead, he was informed that the group did not consider 12-year limits to be effective term limits and that we supported three-term limits. Representative McCollum was taken aback and suggested that we would, “discredit the term limit movement” by advocating three terms. Subsequently, of course, 15 of the 22 states that have passed term limits have three-term limits for their house. Only one state, North Dakota, has voted by initiative for six-term limits. Viewing himself as a leader of the grassroots term limits movement, Representative McCollum, just elected to his eighth term, instead very much reflects an inside the Beltway mentality with respect to this issue. As Michael Kramer wrote in the January 23, 1995 issue of Time, “The dissonance between the people and their leaders on term limits is deafening.”
Philip Blumel: A fourth reason to support three terms over six terms is that the shorter limits are an antidote to the growing professionalization of the legislative process. As political scientist Mark P. Petracca of the University of California, Irvine, has written, “Whereas representative government aspires to maintain a proximity of sympathy and interests between representatives and represented, professionalism creates authority, autonomy, and hierarchy, distancing the expert from the client. Though this distance may be necessary and functional for lawyers, nurses, physicians, accountants, and social scientists, the qualities and characteristics associated with being a professional legislator run counter to the supposed goals of a representative democracy. Professionalism encourages an independence of ambition, judgment, and behavior that is squarely at odds with the inherently dependent nature of representative government.”
Philip Blumel: Finally, the shorter limits for the House are guaranteed to enhance the competitiveness of elections and, as noted above, increase the number and diversity of Americans choosing to run for Congress. As Paul Jacob of U.S. Term Limits has pointed out, the most competitive races and the ones that bring out the largest number of primary candidates are for open seats. At least a third of all House seats will be open under three-term limits each election, with the likelihood that as many as half will not feature an incumbent seeking re-election. We also know from past experience that women and minorities have greater electoral success in open seats races. I would argue as well that the incentives for a citizen legislature are significantly stronger under the shorter limits. Six-term limits are long enough to induce incumbents to stick around for the entire 12 years.
Philip Blumel: Three-term limits are short enough to prompt incumbents to return to the private sector before spending six years in the House. I believe that under a three-term limit, we will witness a return to the 19th-century norm of half the House being freshmen, a true citizen legislature. In addition, the next most competitive races are the incumbent’s first attempt at re-election and the race prior to retirement. Thus, under a three-term limit, virtually all races for the House of Representatives will be more competitive than is the case today or would be the case under six-term limits. In order for the concept of a citizen legislature to have meaning, it is imperative that those serving in the legislature literally view their time in office as a leave of absence from their real jobs or careers.
Philip Blumel: This is the key to a successful citizen legislature. The incentives facing a congressman should never involve a concern over what other legislators might do in retaliation or what special interests might do to one’s political career. I might add that these are not new ideas. I’ve attached to this testimony the text of a section of Cato’s Letters, 18th-century pamphlets that are said to have helped lay the philosophical groundwork for the American Revolution that deals specifically with term limits. I commend it to your attention. Let me close by quoting from the introductory essay in “The Politics and Law of Term Limits” that I co-authored with Roger Pilon, Director of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies.
Philip Blumel: “Stepping back from these policy arguments, however, one sees a deeper issue in the term limits debate, an issue that takes us to our very foundations as a nation. No one can doubt that America was dedicated to the proposition that each of us is and ought to be free. Free to plan and live his own life as a private individual under a government instituted to secure that freedom. Thus, implicit in our founding vision is the idea that most human affairs take place in what today we call the private sector. That sector, and this is the crucial point, is primary. Government comes from it and not the other way around.”
Philip Blumel: “When we send men and women to Congress to represent us, therefore, we want them to understand that they represent us, the overwhelming number of Americans who live our daily lives in that private sector. Moreover, we want them to remember that it is to that private world that they must return to live under the laws that they have made as our representatives. That, in essence, is the message implicit in the growing call for term limits. It is not simply or even primarily a message about good government. Rather, it is a message about the very place of government in the larger scheme of things. Government is meant to be our servant, to assist us by securing our liberty as we live our essentially private lives. It is not meant to be our master in some grand public adventure.”
Philip Blumel: Mr. Chairman, as the contract with America notes at its Salisbury conference, House Republicans talked about governing the country with the will of the people in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is a nonpartisan objective that Democrats should embrace with equal enthusiasm. With respect to term limits, as the attached Luntz poll demonstrates, the will of the people could not be any clearer. They want to return to a citizen legislature, and that means three-term limits in the House of Representatives. Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts with the subcommittee.
Stacey Selleck: Like the show? You can help by subscribing and leaving a five-star review on both Apple and Spotify. It’s free.
Philip Blumel: Thanks for joining us for another episode of No Uncertain Terms. The term limits convention bills are moving through the state legislatures. This could be a breakthrough year for the Term Limits movement. To check on the status of the Term Limits convention resolution in your state, go to termlimits.com/takeaction. There you will see if it has been introduced and where it stands in the committee process on its way to the floor vote. If there’s action to take, you’ll see a Take Action button by your state. Click it. This will give you the opportunity to send a message to the most relevant legislators urging them to support the legislation. They have to know you are watching. That’s termlimits.com/takeaction. If your state has already passed the Term Limits convention resolution or the bill has not been introduced in your state, you can still help. Please consider making a contribution to U.S Term Limits. It is our aim to hit the reset button on the U.S. Congress, and you can help. Go to termlimits.com/donate. Termlimits.com/donate. Thanks. We’ll be back next week.
Stacey Selleck: Find us on most social media @ustermlimits. Like us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and now LinkedIn.
