Search

Objective. Public concern over a seemingly intransigent and insensitive Congress has rekindled interest in raising the rate of turnover in that body. This paper investigates two approaches, term limits and spending limits, and how campaign strategies are affected when such rules are in place. Methods. Viewing congressional campaigns as rent-seeking games, strategic responses to certain rule changes (spending and tenure ceilings) are explored theoretically. These theoretical results then guide some empirical measures using data from the 1980 elections. Results. Term limits reduce the benefits of holding office, which, in turn, reduce the effort put forth in capturing that office. This effect, however, is asymmetrical with incumbents responding more than challengers. Spending limits disproportionately affect challengers, but when long-term effects are considered the 'incumbency protection' they provide is much smaller than previously suggested. Conclusions. Term limits are expected to result in greater congressional turnover with less money being spent on campaigns than in the absence of such a rule. Spending limits can indeed be used to level the electoral playing field especially if the limits take into account the impact of incumbent spending in previous elections on the current campaign.

Each year, thousands of young men enlist in the Armed Forces and after a few years most are discharged and re-enter the civilian labor force. This article investigates the impact of military service, including formal military training and on-the-job experience, on the civilian wage of these veterans. Concentrating on the all voluntary military, we find that the impact of military service on subsequent civilian wages differs with education and race. Non-whites (blacks and hispanics) and high school dropouts benefit from a military stint while college graduates suffer a large wage penalty. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)