I definitely disagree about that. Look at how much time a Congressperson spends raising funds. They clearly don't have the funds necessary to influence their own behavior. They seek out donors and act in those donors' interest in legislative matters. (I'm not saying they work exclusively in donors' interest, but it's clear that donors' interests are taken into account.)
Eh?
Even if a person would not end up with enough funds to secure re-election if they chose to vote against a measure, does not mean that they don’t have the freedom to vote against it.
They are still responsible for their actions even if the alternative actions would be highly against their self-interest.
Even a person who is threatened with death if they don’t take an action, is still free to either take or not take the action. They might be justified in taking the action on the basis of said threat, even if the action would ordinarily be forbidden, but they are still making a choice.
Sure: Legislators have to prioritize lots of different things, not just copyright terms, and the skill of making deals while operating within the rules and traditions of a legislature is one they must learn on the job. Having a bunch of short-timers wouldn't make copyright law reform any more likely, and it certainly wouldn't make anyone more likely to vote their conscience. Further, copyright law isn't an issue of conscience for most legislators to begin with, no matter how long they've been in office, as most of them, like most of their constituents, don't understand the value of public domain or the importance of shared culture.
