Reneged promise
A constitutional term limit will hinder voters' freedom of choice

Yet another issue from the Republicans' Contract with America is in the spotlight. Republicans in Congress are reneging on their promise to add a constitutional amendment that would limit congressional terms.

Last week, House Republicans put a two-week delay on a vote to pass a constitutional amendment on term limits. When Republicans first formed the Contract, they spoke of how public servants should have a limited amount of time to do their duty and then go back to private life. Now, all representatives must do their duty by ensuring that the bill will not pass.

Although term limits may eliminate the pattern of forming a career out of politics and may return the spirit of true public service to Congress, the amendment's passage will take away Americans' right to choose who they want to serve in office. The public should have the right to keep or throw out any representative it wants.

The constitution already does provide for term limits -- in the form of elections. Also, if Republicans want limited terms, they should consider leaving office when they think their job is done.

Even if the bill is passed, the Republicans have added loopholes. The bill proposes that after House members serve 12 consecutive years in Congress, they can take a two-year break and then serve another 12 years -- an idea that is counterproductive to the whole concept of term limits.

But the real issue to debate, which the Republicans refuse to work on, is campaign finance reform. If Republicans want to make a more level playing ground for new candidates to run, they should limit the amount candidates can spend on elections first before adding a set-in-stone constitutional amendment.