What people fail to appreciate is that the currency of corruption in elective office is, not money, but votes.

If enough people openly engage in conduct once considered reprehensible, we rewrite the rule book and assume that God, as a good democrat, will go along.

What people fail to appreciate is that the currency of corruption in elective office is, not money, but votes.

Given the difficulty of resisting such temptations over the longer run, a proper concern for the welfare of congressional souls may well be the ultimate argument in favor of term limitations.

This source of corruption, alas, is inherent in the democratic system itself, and it can only be controlled, if at all, by finding ways to encourage legislators to subordinate ambition to principle.

Under the circumstances, may I suggest another means of encouraging probity in elective office. I refer to term limitations, which can serve ends beyond that of saving congressional souls.

In rendering its decision in our case, the Supreme Court equated money with speech because these days it takes the first to make yourself heard.