I think we've jumped the shark with regard to original/founders' intent, but that being said the intent was for "legislator" to never be a full-time job, or even a job at all. It was supposed to be a public service that citizens took on when necessary for the betterment and representation of their communities.

Now like I said I don't think there's any way to get back to that, but even the notion of a revolving door situation presupposes professional legislators. Term limits in general would help the revolving door problem by limiting the amount of influence any one individual could ever have.

That doesn't answer the question I raised at all. The problem isn't the amount of influence one individual can have, it's the amount of regulatory capture that can occur. It becomes way too easy for industries to promise cushy jobs to ex-legislators in exchange for sweetheart deals while in office.

Members of Congress also have mortgage and college tuition bills to pay. How likely are they to go against the hand that might feed them tomorrow? How motivated will they be in their final 1-2 years of office, knowing it's worth nothing for re-election? How hard would you try at your job if you knew you were getting fired next year no matter what?

> the intent was for "legislator" to never be a full-time job, or even a job at all. It was supposed to be a public service that citizens took on when necessary for the betterment and representation of their communities.

Which is all noble-sounding and Roman and all, but so what? Times change, countries and societies change. Legislation today is incredibly dense and complex and even the full-timers rarely read through all of it, let alone understand it. Part-timers would do even worse.

FWIW the age restrictions on holding office are/were supposed to accomplish what you said about politicians having real-world experience.