Completely wrong!
Before the 17th there was less Senate corruption then after it and certainly not as much as now. (It wasn’t zero but I think I can show it was less!) The need to raise multimillion dollar reelection portfolios introduces far more corruption then influencing a few legislators. You also don’t likely need Senate term limits. Every legislator and state Grand PooH-Bah will see himself/herself in that seat. There will be plenty of competition for it! It will make the governor & the legislature the centers of power in the state. It will be harder to get out-of-state assholes like RFK Sr, Hellary Clinton and others to come into a state where they have no history and to park themselves in that seat for their personal political ambitions. A senator will go back to being the representative of the state AS A INSTITUTION AS THE FOUNDING FATRHERS INTENDED! The senator will not just be another political hack!
Also it will have the happy effect of reducing the partisanship in the Senate. (It will not eliminate it!) A Senator will not just be a “at-large-congresscriter” who serves 6 years like they are now! The whole dynamic of the politics of the Senate and its relations to the House and the executive will change. I think to the better!
Yes, there was significant corruption and dysfunction associated with how U.S. Senators were chosen by state legislatures before the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913.
Background:
Originally, the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 3) gave state legislatures the power to elect U.S. Senators, as a way to preserve state influence in the federal government. This system was meant to balance power between the people (who elected House members) and the states.
Problems That Arose:
By the late 1800s and early 1900s, several serious issues had emerged:
1. Corruption & Bribery:
Wealthy individuals and corporations often bribed state legislators to elect certain candidates to the Senate.
Political machines and party bosses exerted major influence.
Example: In 1899, William A. Clark of Montana (a copper magnate) openly bribed legislators to gain a Senate seat. The U.S. Senate refused to seat him after an investigation.
2. Deadlocks in State Legislatures:
Sometimes, state legislatures couldn’t agree on a Senator, leading to long vacancies.
Example: Delaware went without a U.S. Senator for four years (1899–1903) due to repeated deadlocks.
3. Loss of Public Confidence:
The public increasingly saw the system as corrupt and undemocratic.
Progressive Era reformers pushed for direct election as part of broader anti-corruption efforts.
The 17th Amendment:
In response, the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, mandating direct election of U.S. Senators by voters in each state.
In summary: Yes, the original system of state legislatures choosing Senators was plagued by corruption, bribery, and gridlock. These issues played a major role in the adoption of the 17th Amendment.
From AI