Happy Wednesday, Show Mo Facts supporters! In today’s blog post, we’ll evaluate and fact-check an ad posted on Twitter by the current Missouri Attorney General, Eric Schmitt. Schmitt is Missouri’s Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate and is up against Trudy Busch Valentine.
In this new ad, Schmitt talks to the camera and says three main points, which we will discuss. In the text portion of his tweet when the ad was posted, Schmitt says he will "CLEAN UP Washington".
Claim: “In the Senate, I’ll stop politicians from picking your pockets. We need to pass term limits, ban politicians from becoming lobbyists…”
Fact: Although the US Senate does not have term limits, many scholars, politicians, and voters believe that term limits in the U.S. Senate and the House is bad policy. Academic research also aligns with this conclusion. In a testimony to a subcommittee on term limits in Congress by Thomas E. Mann, a political scientist, in 1997 he said:
But there are already signs appearing that raise doubts about how beneficial (or even benign) term limits will be for the functioning of our democracy. The term-limited states vary by the type of limits imposed (lifetime vs. continuous service), their length (ranging from six to twelve years), and the pattern of turnover in state legislatures before term limits were imposed, making inferences hazardous. What we see thus far suggests that term limits may increase turnover, strengthen executives, shift power from lower to upper chambers (which tend to have longer terms), heighten partisan conflict, and increase reliance on experts, including staff and lobbyists. At the very least, Congress would be wise to defer action on a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms until these state experiments have a chance to play out and the results can be evaluated (Brookings)
These state “experiments” have played out differently across the U.S. In Arkansas, the lifetime limit of sixteen years total in either the House or the Senate was repealed by referendum in 2020. They’re not the only ones, legislative term limits have been repealed or overturned in five other states.
States developed their own limits and language regarding them, so for those that kept them, many are different and don’t align. Because of this, it is still difficult to tell if these limits have been effective or not.
Brookings also published five reasons to oppose term limits, those being:
[term limits would]
Take power away from voters
Severely decrease congressional capacity
Limit incentives for gaining policy expertise
Automatically kick out effective lawmakers
Do little to minimize corruptive behavior or slow the revolving door
Schmitt’s idea to ‘pass term limits’ is unlikely to happen as the Senate as an institution remains “remarkably similar to the body created by the Constitutional Convention in 1787". (senate.gov) The Senate hasn’t changed much in 235 years, so that’s why it’s unlikely that Schmitt will be able to pass term limits right after being elected. His use of this as a strategy of why he should be elected is an obvious pull at voters who aren’t aware of the history of the U.S. Senate and how it has never, in its history, had term limits.
Schmitt’s other claim is that he will ban politicians from becoming lobbyists. This is yet another unlikely claim because when term limits are in effect, politicians depend more on lobbyists to fill their informational and policy gaps. This effect is known as the “Burkean shift”, whereby term-limited legislators become less beholden to the constituents in their geographical districts and more attentive to other concerns. Although the Burkean shift is academic research, the concept has a lot of evidence to back it up. If you’re interested in that, click the link above to read some scholarly articles on it!
Schmitt’s ideas in this new advertisement seem oddly familiar. That is because Trudy Busch Valentine tweeted this graphic on September 13th, 2022:
It is apparent that Schmitt’s “ideas” and Valentine’s are almost carbon copies. Schmitt is constantly boasting on Twitter about how her ideas will never work and are impractical: however, here it’s obvious to see that he does agree with some of her policies.
Schmitt’s claims are overestimating what a freshman senator can do, as the U.S. Senate works largely via seniority. This means that senior Senators, those who have been around longer, have more power. They’re able to choose the committees they’d like to be on and also have more logos. His claims are unlikely to happen and he is using these buzzwords to attract attention. The use of these popular topics is a grasp of emotional appeal. Schmitt wants voters to be angry about term limits, just like he supposedly is. He frames it in the ad like it’s a huge problem, but the research shows otherwise.
Overall, we’d rate this ad as HIGH on our Pants on Fire O-Meter. Schmitt does not make any factually wrong claims, rather he is misguided on term limits. The ideas he has in the ad are not feasible. His copying of Valentine is also very interesting as on social media he is completely against his opponent.
Thank you for reading Show Mo Facts! Be sure to follow us on Twitter as well as like and comment on this post. Also, send us any ads that you see and would like us to cover through our Contact page. If you’d like to check out another blog from our class, we recommend Gateway To Facts. They are fact-checking the MO DNC. Find them here!
コメント