I'm in a rare moment of agreement with Devil on this one. Term limits for congress critters. 3 terms for reps, 1 for senators. No bouncing back and forth between chambers to reset the limit clock, that is a total of 3 terms as a rep and 1 as a senator, that's it.
Against limits on non-elected officials. Also against imposing limits on employment after a stint in elected national office. If someone wants to become a lobbyist straight out of congress, more power to them. With term limits in place, the benefits of hiring from congress will be reduced and the sway any hire out of congress has with membership at the time will wane quickly. Also, with term limits in place, there should be less institutionalized acceptance of "soft" corruption between govt and lobbyists, such as that most recently exposed with the decades long, slow cook banking and financial sector efforts on many congresses and WH administrations. It should also lead to less "game playing" with procedural rule changes in congress designed to hurt the out of power party. With less entrenched interests and bald party loyalty politics and the prospect of potentially frequent changes in majority power (or even the rise of a viable third or fourth party!) the game in each house of congress should hopefully clean itself up as a matter of practical self-interest.
A bit off topic but:
Hard money campaign contribution limits are, in my opinion, infringement of political speech and free association. I get what they are intended to do, but they simply do not accomplish the intended goal. The elimination of "soft money" contributions to campaigns was spot on. A similar change should be made for donations to political parties, if it hasn't already happened. But hard money contribution limits only do one thing, shift that money that would have gone to a candidate or party into more "creative", far less transparent, and for more worrisome (from a corruption stand point) issue and advocacy groups.
This is not to say these third party groups should be eliminated or that their funding should be subject to the same "hard money" transparency rules that candidates and parties are subject to, I think it would be a violation of constitutional protections to do that. No, I'm simply saying that given the choice, we should be encouraging people to give as much as they wish directly to candidates and parties rather than give them no option but to seek political voice and power through these alternatives. Especially because, as we have seen with groups like MoveOn, Swift Vets for Truth, ACORN, and others, the wall of separation between the groups and the parties/campaigns that is supposed to exist is often extremely thin. And even if just barely present, still leads to all-to-easily credible claims of collusion, corruption, and even outright election fraud casting shadows upon all involved and eating away at the integrity of election results.
By forcing the big ole pot of money and political power to these opaque groups it invites the very corruption the limits were intended to reduce, and it is even more difficult to sort out or to hold people accountable for it given its involvement of multiple parties, the state and even city level decentralized nature of the groups (and thus the investigations), and the fact that dispersed, hard to pin point campaign or election corruption doesn't hold the national attention like a candidate caught and singly responsible for corruption in the campaign.
In either case, the money is in the game and the poor are just as disenfranchised as ever, one system just encourages money to pool in transparent campaigns as opposed to opaque third party advocacy groups.