"Are these union people?"

[we vs us]

Lobbying used to be corporations courting government so that they could be more profitable, expand, and ultimately grow the economy.  It has now become corporations courting government for taxpayer money so that they can pay back campaign donors and gamble risk-free.

When was that? 

Or rather, when was it never not both? 

No matter what era you study, business and government in the US have always been intimately intertwined.  It's certainly nothing you can lay at the doorstep of this administration specifically . . . and actually something that goes back a couple centuries.  It's worse now because of some major cultural changes in how the government operates (cf. Citizens United decision), the global scale and funding of corporations, and how a certain voluble subset of our political class views the role of government as it relates to industry -- namely that government should be teensy, unobtrusive, and laissez faire. All of these things have contributed to the capture of government by other interests (which, btw, I don't limit simply to corporations . . . unions, and other NGOs also have influence, but by sheer size of resources, corporations win out).

[we vs us]

And yes, if we could find a way to institute a non-compete policy without somehow limiting a representatives essential freedoms, I'd be all for it.  I don't think there are ways to make it a perfectly incorruptible system, but taking active steps to limit influence peddling?  Yes please.

[carltonplace]

The difficulty with term limits is that they increase the churn time for a given legislator.  We have a well-documented revolving door problem, with legislators turning into lobbyists at a crazy rate.  Term limiting them just transforms their time in Washington into an 8 year lobbyist training course.  

It also doesn't help that corporations now have unlimited free political "speech" rights, and can spend essentially anything they want during (and not during) campaign season.  There's no way the individual citizen can counteract the scale of that kind of influence.  

EDIT:  re: term limits . . . certainly there has to be a better way to limit $$$ influence while they're in office, rather than limiting what might begin as a genuine desire to fulfill a civic duty.    Term limits assume that everyone will, given enough time, be corrupted by Washington.  It doesn't assume that there can be a successful or useful career politician. 

Yep, nail hit squarely on its round head:
Our government is for sale, and not just to big business, coal, oil, the Koch brothers and unions. Foreign entities can pay to play as well.

[nathanm]

The difficulty with term limits is that they increase the churn time for a given legislator.

Moreover, they have the nasty side effect of decimating institutional knowledge, thus making Congress much less effective and eroding its power relative to the other branches of government. It also makes us more likely to get a bunch of freshman nutjobs like we have in the current House. I, for one, appreciate a relatively moderate Congress, even though it often frustrates me.

[Conan71]

Moreover, they have the nasty side effect of decimating institutional knowledge, thus making Congress much less effective and eroding its power relative to the other branches of government. It also makes us more likely to get a bunch of freshman nutjobs like we have in the current House. I, for one, appreciate a relatively moderate Congress, even though it often frustrates me.

Actually, I'd think term limits would make legislators less beholden to more extreme interests and I still think 8 years is plenty of seniority and knowledge base.  I mean really, the only thing that happens beyond a few years is legislators become more entrenched in the political and fund-raising processes to ensure their survival and that erodes their objectivity, IMO.

As well, a more rapid turn-over rate might keep one party from dominating power for any length of time.