It was his own personal “policy”, not some actual law or rule. He just didn’t want to accept large gifts that left him beholden to the gift-giver. He later returned the money to his colleagues despite their attempt to “work around” this personal policy. This is the rich people equivalent of having someone at work that’s well-liked but doesn’t like people to make a big deal out of it. He could use something to do his job more easily, but it’s kind of expensive so everyone pitches in a little bit to get it for him. If anything, the fact that such an apparently honest man who also went against the segregationist Southern Democrat party line at the risk of his own career to do the right thing stayed in office as long as he did is an argument against term limits.

You think it would be a good idea for the entirety of congress to turnover every 4 years? Do you realize how much of a shit show that would be, even compared to our current system? I realize that there's this push going on to get rid of career politicians, and replace them with "regular people" but we do actually need some people in Washington that know how the system works.

Also, I don't even agree that the "workaround" is abhorrent, as you say. The purpose of limiting the size of a gift is so that an elected official does not feel obliged to act in the interest of the gift giver rather than their own constituents. If the cost of the gift is spread over a couple hundred people who all have different priorities, then the issue of being beholden to any one of them is mostly nullified. It's not remotely the same as the shit that goes on today with lobbyists in Washington. Your take on this makes no sense at all.