Tangle - INTERVIEW: Nick Tomboulides on terms limits in Congress.

Episode Date: January 23, 2022

Every day, Tangle readers write in with questions.And at least once a week, I get a reader question about term limits for Congress. Do I support them? Do I think they would work? Why don't we have them? Today we sat down with Nick Tomboulides, the Executive Director of U.S. Term Limits and one of the leading experts on term limits in the United States. You might recognize Nick from his 2019 Congressional testimony, which went viral, where he testified before the Senate and told them exactly why he thought they all needed to have their terms limited.You can read today's podcast here.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.

Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else. I am your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we are sitting down with Nick Tambolidis, the Executive Director of U.S. Term Limits, a nonprofit organization educating and advocating for the establishment and preservation of term limits. Nick, thank you so much for joining us. Isaac, thank you for having me. Really happy to be on. So Nick, my understanding is that you are now today one of the top experts on term limits.

You've testified before Congress. You've pushed to institute them in U.S. government. I'm just curious about your story. Maybe you could tell me a little bit about how you got into this space, how you got into politics. What's behind all this? Sure. Well, I think for me, I started out with sort of like a conventional political background. I was really a partisan political activist, like many of us are. And I drank that Kool-Aid for a

while. And eventually, I realized that none of these candidates on either side of the aisle were really delivering for us because, you know, they were so beholden to their funders and to the special interests. And I, it dawned on me, you know, working in that area that grassroots democracy really doesn't exist in this country. And that the little people are really kind of ignored by our elected officials. And so, you know, I was banging my head against the wall as a campaign worker, as a volunteer, as a grassroots activist, trying to elect different candidates. I kept thinking, well, you know, we're on the Titanic, but if only we elect a better captain, we're going to avoid the

iceberg. And eventually, I realized, no, we've got to fix our ship. We've got structural problems in this country, structural problems with our Congress and the type of people that we elect. And so now I consider myself a full-time term limits activist. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. My political ideology at this point is term limits. I focus on this 100% of the time. And I think it's really the most meaningful change that we can make to reclaim our democracy. So I'm curious, I mean, you work at this

organization, which I'll be frank with you before doing some research on this topic, I actually didn't know about you guys. US term limits, like you said, you're solely focused on this as a priority for reforming Congress. What kind of work do you guys do? I mean, how do you approach this? What do you step into when it comes to the issue of term limits? So, it's okay if I give you a little background first on where we've been, and then you can figure out where we're going. So, you know, we were out of the limelight for a little while, US term limits. But in the early 1990s, when we were founded, we were actually, you know, the driving force behind the modern term limits movement. And what we did back then is we went into 23 states, and we ran ballot initiative campaigns to have people vote directly to term limit their

own members of Congress. And those were all either state statutes, or they were amendments to state constitutions. So for example, if you lived here in Florida, where I live back in 1992, you would have voted on the November ballot that year for an amendment to the Florida Constitution that would have term limited all members of Congress from Florida, as well as our state legislature. So we went round robin, we did that around the country. And by 1995, 23 states had implemented term limits on their own congressional delegations. Of course, all those laws were challenged by members of Congress. It was appealed to the US Supreme Court. And in the 1995 split decision, US term limits v. Thornton, 5-4 decision, the court ruled

that states cannot impose term limits on their own members of Congress in that way. In order to get term limits for Congress, it has to be a constitutional amendment. And so what we're doing today as an organization is we are pursuing a constitutional amendment for term limits on Congress. And we're doing it through two different approaches, because the Constitution gives you two methods of getting an amendment. You can either get a two thirds vote in Congress to propose the amendment. We call that the Turkey's voting for Thanksgiving approach. Or you can go through the state legislatures and ask them to call an amendment proposing convention for an amendment.

to call an amendment proposing convention for an amendment. And so when you look back on the history of constitutional amendments, you find that in many cases, the genesis of a constitutional amendment came from the states, like the 17th Amendment, for instance, which directly elects our senators, that started at the state level, because the Senate kept blocking that amendment over and over and over again. The people really wanted it, but the members of Congress blocked it out of self-interest. And so what the grassroots activists did was they started going to the state legislatures, asking those states to call a convention to directly elect senators. That was the lever of pressure. That was the writing on the wall, which really forced Congress to act. So most of what I do as leader of US term limits is I go state by state. We talk with state

legislatures, and we ask them to pass a resolution for a single issue convention to create term limits on Congress. And we have passed that resolution in Florida, Alabama, West Virginia, as well in Missouri. So we've passed it in Florida, Alabama, Missouri, and West Virginia. We've passed a single chamber in North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Georgia, Louisiana, and Arizona. So we have proven the concept that state legislators have just enough independence from the federal system that with the right pressure, with the right cajoling, they are willing to vote for term limits on members of Congress, willing to vote for a convention to term limit Congress. Now what we're looking to do is scale this across the country for 2022 and beyond.

I couldn't help but notice that when you listed those states, they were all pretty much states that are controlled by Republican legislators. I'm wondering why you think that is and what kind of disparity you run in in terms of who's receptive to this idea by political party. So in terms of public polling, there's really hardly any discrepancy at all i mean we just had a recent national poll uh from rasmussen uh not rasmussen reports but scott rasmussen it's a different organization rmg research uh that found that 82 percent of people support term limits for congress and that included 87% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats. So among the rank and file among the men and women on the street,

there's very little difference in public support. I would say among elected officials, there is a little bit of a difference. But I would point out that while these states are currently Republican controlled, we are getting both Republican and Democratic votes inside of these states. So for example, when we passed the Term Limits Convention here in Florida, it was actually a Democratic female state senator, now a state representative, Geraldine Thompson, who was the deciding vote on our committee to put us over the top. So yes, these are Republican run states, but we're getting bipartisan votes, and we're getting bipartisan support within these states. So I hate to sort of start in the middle and work backwards,

the little bit of the Star Wars treatment here on this issue. But I do think it's important to sort of set this foundation for the rest of our conversation, which is, I'm curious, you know, what's your elevator pitch? What's the fundamentals of this issue? Why do you believe of government for the last 30 or 40 years, and it has clearly failed. Congress has a 15% approval rating, but a 95% reelection rate. That is a sign of a clearly broken and dysfunctional system. People are unhappy with Congress. Actually, that's an understatement. People are disgusted with Congress, and they want change. We have given the so-called political experts decades and decades of time to solve all of our national problems. And I think most people would

agree that they've made nearly all of our problems worse. We have record debt, we have record partisanship, we have an immigration crisis, we have a healthcare crisis. So Congress has accomplished very, very little. But at the same time, the career politicians are feathering their nests. You know, we've got people, senior leadership and Congress are in their 80s. And they get reelected, you know, every single election cycle. And we as voters have very little recourse because the power of incumbency is so strong. And so with term limits, what we're looking to do is we're looking to get back to the model of government that our country was built upon, which is citizen leaders, people from all walks of life. Back in the founding era, it was shopkeepers and farmers and lawyers, people from all different professions who would come to

Washington for a short time. They would change the system before it changed them. And then they would go home to live under the laws they made. They wouldn't exempt themselves from laws like Congress does with insider trading and so many other issues. And so I think that's what we're looking to get back to. When you know that your time in office is short, you bring an urgency and a purpose to the job that just doesn't exist with cynical career politicians. We need new faces. We need fresh thinking. We need political courage. We need people who are not afraid to lose their seats. They're not afraid to piss off some lobbyist or some bureaucrat

somewhere, and they have the guts to do the right thing. So I think that is all of the above what term limits would accomplish. And we've seen it accomplishing this at the state level. 15 state legislatures have term limits. And what we've seen is they have more competitive elections. They have younger legislatures. They're all doing well in rankings of fiscal health, fiscal stability. And we'd like to bring some of that to Washington. We think term limits would have the most powerful impact in Washington, D.C., because Washington is the haven for the most entrenched, most professional politicians. Hello, Tangle listeners. This is your producer, Trevor, speaking. Nick Tumbalides recently testified in front of Congress advocating for his term limits policies. And in sifting through that audio, looking for a clip to give

you guys to provide a little bit of context, we decided why not just show you the whole thing. It's about five minutes long if you'd prefer to just skip ahead to the rest of the interview. Otherwise, here's Nick testifying before Congress. Our first witness, Mr. Tumbalides. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators, for providing me an opportunity to address this important issue. I want you to imagine for a moment that you are an employer and you've got some problems with your employees. When you hired these employees, they promised they would do exactly what you asked of them. But once they got the job, they became a nightmare. They stopped listening to you and started using the job to line their own pockets.

They took the company credit card and racked up more debt than you could afford to pay back. They became so obsessed with keeping their jobs that they forgot to do their jobs. And after all that failure, all that disappointment, and all that incompetence, your employees came to you and said, we deserve a raise. If you're a reasonable person, that should make your blood boil. And yet, that is exactly what it feels like to be an American taxpayer. The first three words in our Constitution are, we the people. It's written larger than anything else because the framers of that document, the architects of our republic, wanted to remind you at all times who's in charge. We, the people. We are your employers, and you have an obligation to listen to us. So I come to you with a message from the American people. We demand term limits for

members of Congress. In fact, according to the most recent national polls on the issue, 82 percent of Americans want term limits. That includes support from 89% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, and 83% of independent voters. This is not a left or right issue. This is an American issue. In fact, term limits could be the only issue with support from both President Trump and former President Obama. Now there was a time about 25 years ago when Congress was debating this. Nearly every opponent of term limits up here had the same rebuttal. Experience, experience, experience. We need experience to do this job right. If only you leave your congressmember in office for decades on end, he or she will become such a policy expert that all our

problems will be solved. In hindsight, that was one of the worst predictions ever. This system is broken. Congress has given us $22 trillion in debt, the longest war in American history, a broken health care system, a broken immigration system, a tax code written by lobbyists, an explosion of money in politics. Worst of all, too few here have the courage to address these problems because the only focus is on getting reelected. That's why it comes as no surprise that Congress has a 14% approval rating and 60% of Americans say that they would fire every single member of Congress if

they could. Congress is less popular than traffic jams, root canals, and hemorrhoids. You're beating head lice, but canals, and hemorrhoids. You're beating head lice, but the lice have asked for a recount. Unfortunately, elections alone cannot fix this problem. Not because voters like you guys so much, but due to the nearly unbreakable power of incumbency. At the same time, members of Congress publicly claim elections are free and fair. They secretly deploy every trick in the book to keep power. Incumbents get $9 in special interest money for every dollar that goes to a challenger. And if incumbents are having difficulty raising money, not to worry, they're allowed to send campaign-style mailers at taxpayer expense. That's to say nothing of all the free media

and name recognition politicians naturally get just for being in office. The incumbent advantage creates a barrier to entry for everyday Americans without the connections to fund a campaign. It is the case for term limits. Elections may in theory be capable of dethroning incumbents, but that isn't how it works in the real world. Congressional incumbents have a 98 percent re-election rate. That probably explains why Congress looks more like a country club than a melting pot. It's predominantly made up of lawyers and politicians and is disproportionately old, white, rich, and male. Term limits would give us a legislature that better reflects the diversity of our society. The message long-term incumbents send to young people like me seems to be, we want

you just close enough to the political process to help us win, but don't get too close and take our jobs. The American people have lost confidence in this Congress and for good reason. We routinely see abuses of power. 18 months ago it was revealed that members of Congress were secretly using taxpayer money to settle lawsuits, some for sexual harassment. You still haven't disclosed how our money was spent and on whose behalf. So term limits is a check on arrogance, it's a check on incumbency, and it's a check on power. It's a way to restore political courage while bringing fresh faces and ideas to Washington. As Ben Franklin said, for the rulers to return among the people was not to degrade them, but to promote them.

As Kanye West said, no one man should have all that power. Here's the dilemma we face. Over 80% of Americans want term limits to happen. Donald Trump and Barack Obama want it. It is being blocked purely by the self-interest of Congress. If this were a trial, you all would have to recuse yourselves, because there is a colossal conflict of interest. If term limits pass, you won't stay in the limelight forever. You won't be the center of attention. And some people might even stop laughing at your jokes. You'll have to become ordinary citizens. And that is, my friends, the entire point.

We're asking you to do what's right and listen to the people you represent. It's time to bring the gravy train into the station, end the reign of career politicians, and give Congress back to the people. Please support Senate Joint Resolution 1 for term limits. Thank you. So you recently testified before Congress, and I was, frankly, really excited and proud of you, despite not knowing you, for not pulling any punches. I mean, I watch a lot of congressional testimony, and I see a lot of people kind of beat around the bush in ways that they don't normally when they're campaigning for their issue outside of sitting in

front of Congress. I have to know, I mean, what do you feel like the response was to your testimony? And how do you think that experience went for you? Nothing, there was no response, at least from members of the Senate. It's funny, I actually pulled one senator aside after that committee hearing. And I said, so this is a subcommittee, right? He said, yes, a subcommittee. And, you know, I know how legislation works because we're working on it all the time on the state level. I said, so what happens next? Is the subcommittee going to vote?

He said, I don't know. It's a member of the United States Senate serving on a subcommittee doesn't know whether his own subcommittee is going to vote or not. Because ultimately, in my opinion, all those decisions are made by leadership. All those decisions are made by Mitch McConnell, an 80-year-old man who's been in politics elected for 45 years. So that was frankly astounding to me. I felt that the testimony fell on deaf ears with members of the Senate. But the silver lining of it was I think it woke up the American people. And it was way more successful in terms of the reach than I could have ever imagined. You know, if you someone told me if you add up all the different versions of the video, it's like 30 million, maybe 40 million views.

It's on Reddit and TikTok and other websites. Some millennials are using that I can't pronounce. But ultimately, I think it informed people that the term limits issue is out there. I think I was able to encapsulate a lot of the frustration that people have with Congress. And I think what it has helped do is build a much bigger grassroots movement for term limits that didn't exist before. So even if the politicians immediately in the aftermath of that hearing are not listening to us, they will be listening to us soon because I think this issue is a sleeping giant. One of the most common responses that I see to the term limit arguments, and I do this frequently in my newsletter,

my podcast. So I'll show my cards here and just say, I am preferential to your position that, you know, it seems to make sense to me that term limits would probably improve the way Congress functions. I have a couple of concerns that I'm interested to get into, but I think the most common response I see is just that we already have term limits, they're called elections, that's like the standard response. And our elected officials have to face their voters, you know, once every two years, or once every six years, depending on whether they're in the House or the Senate. So I'm interested, you know, what's your response to that? What do you say to people who sort of view this issue that way?

What do you say to people who sort of view this issue that way? So last time I was in Washington, D.C., I actually had a member of Congress make that argument to me. He essentially said, well, if you don't like me, why don't you just vote me out? The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu.

It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. And I said, look, I have to be frank with you. I think that's an interesting argument, Congressman. But if people could so easily vote you out, why are you back there sitting on a stack of $10 million in your pack? Why are you spending five hours a day on a telephone, raising money from the interests that sit in front of your committee in order to get reelected, if it's so easy to vote you out? And if packs, corporate packs, interest PACs are writing a $10 check to incumbents for every $1 that they write to a challenger, how easy is it really to dislodge or dethrone an incumbent?

I mean, I think that is a great talking point. And members of Congress are very adept at using that talking point. But those of us who really understand the way Washington works and really understand the system, which I think is all of the American people, I mean, I think everyone understands how it works, knows that because the incumbents are exploiting the advantages of incumbency, that it's really not a fair fight. They have the money, they have the name recognition. Anytime a congressman announces a new initiative, he gets automatic press coverage, which is basically like a free campaign commercial. My own congressman, Bill Posey, he actually sends me a little letter in the mail from time to time that says, Bill Posey hurricane update. And it's everything Bill Posey is doing to protect people from hurricanes here in Central East Florida. And that's taxpayer funded. I mean, that is essentially a campaign style mailer, but it is taxpayer funded through the franking privilege, where members of Congress can spend more taxpayer money on their campaigns than a challenger can raise like in total.

like in total. So I think it's, it's, it's a stack deck. It is a broken system. It's being manipulated by incumbents. And as a result, Isaac, we don't really have choices on our ballot now, because incumbency is so strong. You know, I saw a study somewhere that said one third of elections in the country just feature one incumbent running unopposed. That certainly doesn't give you choices. I mean, I don't want my elections to look like a Soviet grocery store, where I only have like one or two options. I want like 10 people on the ballot, I want real choice and competition. And so that's actually what term limits gets you. Because when you see an open seat, whenever a seat is open, whether it's because a member is retiring, or they've been term limited, or maybe they went to prison, which is happening more frequently now, lots of people run for that seat. And it's

easier to win, because it doesn't cost as much money. So the barriers to entry are lower, more people can run, they have a real fighting chance to get elected to Congress. Whereas under the status quo, 90% of the time in Congress, it's either an incumbent running completely unopposed or under opposed, meaning someone has filed to run against them, but it's not a serious candidate who has raised actual money. So when people bring up that point to me, I always say, well, it's true that there is something in this country that's suffocating competition at the ballot box, but that thing is incumbency. It is not term limits. You're putting the wrong defendant on trial. Incumbency is holding back choices at the ballot box way more than term limits ever could. And in fact, when you have term limits,

when you have those open seats, the voter gets way more choices, way more options. One of the arguments that I think kind of resonates with me, at least, is that, like any profession, members of Congress benefit from experience. So, you know, the idea is, if you go to some brain surgeon, you'd rather have the guy who's been on the job for 30 years than the guy who's been on the job for two years. And I think there is something compelling about that logic. And I'm wondering how a term limit structured Congress addresses that. Because despite the abysmal approval ratings for Congress, there are members of Congress out there who enjoy really strong support from their

constituents and have for many years. And I imagine that's in part because they get good at doing their job. I mean, even if it's one or two of them, they exist, they're out there. So, you know, what do you think about that argument? And how do you guys address it in your own plans? Well, I think the key to term limits is it has to strike the right balance between allowing for you to get some degree of experience, while also ensuring that there's a regular flow of fresh ideas and new faces coming into government. So the term limit that we advocate for would be six years in the House, and 12 years in the Senate, three terms in the House, two terms in the Senate. If you're able to serve in the House and Senate, that would be

18 years in Washington, D.C., which is more than enough, I think, to make your mark and make changes and leave a legacy. So we think our term limit does strike that balance. And most people, when we poll them, agree that a term limit of six years is pretty much in that wheelhouse. But I think we have to talk about different types of experience here, because are most members of Congress today really getting the right type of experience, which is studying policy, reading these thousand page bills, becoming subject matter experts? I don't think they are. In fact, I think the lack of term limits is hurting us in this area, because most members of Congress are so focused on keeping their jobs that they often don't have enough time to do their jobs. We mentioned earlier that the average member of Congress leaves the Capitol for four or five hours a day, walks down to a call center, and basically sits on the phone like a paid

telemarketer begging for money for his next re-election campaign. There have been studies that show that members of Congress spend 70% to 80% of their time campaigning for reelection rather than actually doing the job of being in Congress. If you had term limits and people were more insulated from the politics of it all, and they knew that they couldn't build an empire in Washington, DC, they would have to just be there for a few terms, and then they would be sent home. I think there would be a way less of a focus on getting reelected and more of a focus on actually doing the job, actually reading the bills, serving your constituents, and becoming an expert. You know, there's a lot to be said for experience.

We're big believers in real life, real world experience. So for example, we think, You know, there's a lot to be said for experience. We're big believers in real life, real world experience. So for example, we think, you know, having more doctors in Congress will result in better healthcare policy, because they know the subject matter. We think having more teachers in Congress will result in better education policy. So we're not saying, you know, ditch experience, we're not denigrating the value of it, but we're saying that real life experience is the most important. Ronald Reagan actually had a quote once he said, the only experience you get in politics is how to be political. And we're kind of seeing that playing out at the national stage right now. I'm curious, does this logic for you guys apply

across other government disciplines? I mean, term limits in the Supreme Court is something a lot of people have been talking about recently. Are you advocating for this in other places in government? Is your primary focus on Congress? Do you think this is a tried and true way to structure government positions that should apply in more places outside of just the House and Senate? It should certainly apply to all elected positions, because with elected positions, we see just insane degrees of unfairness developing in our election system, and incumbents who are able to manipulate the advantages of incumbency to keep power. So anytime there is an election, and we want to kind

of clear the deck and create opportunities for new people to emerge, I think you need term limits. With respect to Supreme Court term limits, we do support it. And we're excited about the efforts that you've seen recently. But with Supreme Court term limits, you're going after a very different goal. Unless you're talking about Supreme Court justices in the states who are elected at regular intervals, federal Supreme Court justices don't need to stand for reelection. And so the motivation, I think, for Supreme Court term limits is to calm down the political circus that we see every time that there's a confirmation hearing, to kind of depoliticize the Supreme Court. Because I know every American wants to throw stuff at their TV when we're watching these confirmation hearings, they just become so political. If you knew that a new judge could be appointed at a regular interval,

say 18 years, you would take a lot of the politics out of the equation, you would just let Supreme Court justices do their job and interpret the law. So yes, we do support it. But I think, as I said, the motivation for judicial term limits is different from the motivation that we have in Congress. you know one of the one of the things i like asking people in your position who are doing this advocacy work is if you've heard some compelling arguments that have sort of given you pause or stopped you in your tracks that are in opposition to your stated position. I mean, from your perspective, what do you think is the best argument against term limits? Is there a case out there that you've found particularly compelling and why? I think that's a great question. And no, there are absolutely no good reasons to oppose term limits, none whatsoever. This issue is perfect 100% of the way. No, it's a good question. I would say that the one that I find the most compelling

would be, hey, there are some real good people who get elected to Congress under the status quo. You know, Bob Dole is one name that came up recently. I don't know how you personally feel about Bob Dole. But you know, it's undoubtedly the truth that many Americans felt that Bob Dole was a statesman. There are other statesmen who are in Congress for a very long time, and people would hate to lose them. compelling enough to oppose term limits, because I find that the best members of Congress, the biggest statesmen that we have, and stateswomen are so often marginalized by congressional leadership. And the agenda is so often dictated by the funders, you know, by the big packs, by the big industries, that the statesmen, the people in the current system who really want to do the right thing, they're so marginalized that sometimes they're on the losing

end of like 434 to one votes. And it's my belief that if we had term limits, we might be able to elect enough of those statesmen and stateswomen to really make a difference, to really build a voting block in Congress that has political courage and can actually effectuate change and do the right thing. So I think that argument does have some merit. But if you really want to transform the way our federal government works, you need term limits because you have to create a pipeline for more people like that to get elected to Congress and make a real difference. One of the things I'm kind of picking up on here is that a good deal of this, from your perspective, is tied to what Congress, members of Congress are doing with their time, which is they're campaigning and they're seeking

out donations and talking to big donors to make sure they can get reelected. There are other proposals out there that try to address that issue, whether it's publicly funded elections or restructuring the way campaign finance works. What do you think of some of those proposals out there that could address or remedy some of these problems in the event that in the near term, congressional term limits doesn't come to fruition? So I think some of those proposals do have merit. I don't consider myself an expert on any of those by any stretch, but I do see deficiencies in some of them in that they don't totally tackle the problem of the incumbent advantage. magic wand and somehow equalize campaign finance between incumbents and challengers, that might be a great start. But the incumbent would still have a tremendous number of other institutional advantages that would likely lead to reelection rates still north of 80, 90%. So I don't think that would be a cure-all. I think with gerrymandering reform is another one

that many people have proposed. It's absolutely something that we need to do. I mean, everyone knows gerrymandering is ridiculous. But at the same time, that would only cure the problem of districts that are improperly partisan in one direction or another. It wouldn't create real competition within those primaries, because you would still have a career politician within that party, monopolizing the system and drowning out the voice of the grassroots. So, you know, I think all of these ideas have some merit and should be debated. You know, I'm encouraged by the fact that these ideas are being debated. But term limits definitely needs to be a piece of the puzzle because careerism and unfettered

ambition have just been a disaster for our country. So yeah, I can see why those ideas are getting debated right now, but I don't think they alleviate the need for term limits. Are there any sitting members of Congress who have taken your position? Yes. In fact, we actually have a pledge for members of Congress asking them to co-sponsor and vote for a constitutional amendment for a three-term limit in the House, two-term limit in the Senate. And we have had about 90 members of Congress between the House and Senate sign that pledge. We've got a resolution

in the House filed by Congressman Ralph Norman, that's HJR 12. And then we've got a Senate joint resolution, SJR 3, filed by Senator Ted Cruz. So, you know, the numbers are constantly growing of term limit supporters in Congress. We're going around trying to collect as many pledges from congressional candidates as possible this election cycle. But it's still not enough because the constitutional amendment requires two thirds vote. And even if you have the two thirds, it's an open question of whether the leadership, whether 80-year-old Nancy Pelosi, 81-year-old Steny Hoyer, and 81-year-old Jim Clyburn are going to let that happen. That is honestly more than I was expecting you to say. I mean, I knew that there had been some sponsored legislation in both the House and the Senate, but I did not realize. I mean,

90 is a much larger number than I would have guessed. I probably would have pegged it somewhere in the 20s. So I find that rather encouraging, actually. I guess, relatedly, what do you feel about your odds? What do the next five or 10 years look like for you guys in this battle? I'd love to get a sense and take your temperature about how you think this this fight's going and where it's heading, you know, in the in the near short term of 510 years. Sure. Well, if you were just to ask me about the congressional path in a vacuum, I'm not very bullish on that. You know, I don't think members of Congress are going to pull the brake on their own gravy train and pass term limits tomorrow, even though it's the most popular and bipartisan issue in our country. It's like 82% of Americans want this, and yet a very small percentage of members of Congress are behind it. I think that tells you something about accountability and representation.

So if we were to leave Congress to their own devices, I think the odds are very low. But in my opinion, the magic bullet here is going to be our organizing at the state level. Because if the states if enough states call for the term limits convention, you will be able to basically create the threat of states completely bypassing Washington, D.C., completely circumventing the swamp and implementing term limits for Congress on their own. So you would raise that specter behind Congress. And I think if we get ahead of steam on this, if we get 20 to 25 states that have made the call for the term limits convention, which may be realistic in the next five years, then I think Congress will be under the gun,

and they will feel that pressure, and they will want to take control of the process. And so that might be the leverage that we need to get Congress ultimately to propose the amendment. Like I said, if you go back in history, you look at other amendments in our constitution, including even presidential term limits, direct election of senators, repeal of prohibition. We've got several amendments in our constitution right now that started out as efforts for a convention called by the states and then morphed into a successful effort by Congress to propose those amendments. So if history is any indication, the secret sauce here will be getting state legislatures to call for the term limits convention. And you have to think about it this way, too. As we get closer to getting the term limits convention, these state legislators are going to be able to smell blood in the water. They're going to want those seats in Congress. They view it as term limits as job opportunities,

a way for them to move up and knock off some of these prehistoric dinosaurs who've been there 30 or 40 years. And so they might want to push for, if the states are in control, possibly a very short term limit, possibly a retroactive term limit that's going to eject as many members of Congress as possible in as soon a timeframe as possible. And Congress will want the opposite. They will want grandfathering. They will want term limits that don't apply to them that are not retroactive. And so I think they have an incentive to take control of the process. And frankly, if they did, if Congress saw the writing on the wall and proposed the amendment, we would be okay with that because

we're in this for posterity. We don't have a grudge. We don't have a vendetta against Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell or any specific member of Congress. We want to reform the system for the future. So we want to get term limits come hell or high water. I think this might be the way to do it. Nick Tumbalides, I love it. Thank you so much for the time and coming on. If people want to keep up with your work and keep track of some of the stuff you guys are doing, where's the best place to do it? You can visit us, US Term Limits on Facebook, US Term Limits on Twitter, and you can visit on our website, termlimits.com. And if you're a grassroots activist who wants to get involved at the state level, go to termlimits.com slash take action.

And then you will find our calls to action where you will be able to communicate with your representatives directly to help get this done. Nick, thank you so much for the time. I appreciate you coming on. Thank you, Isaac. Had a great time. Our newsletter is written by Isaac Saul, edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction

with Tangle's social media manager, Magdalena Bokova, who also helped create our logo. The podcast is edited by Trevor Eichhorn and music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. For more from Tangle, subscribe to our newsletter or check out our content archives at www.readtangle.com. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada,

which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed.