> This is a circular argument. The concern about infinite term career politicians is non-accountability and entrenched institutional corruption. Saying "well the institution has its own inertia and will still function" doesn't solve the original problem.

I don't follow. The fact that you have a variety of politicians, some at the beginning and some at the end of their 12 year term, means you have a substantial non-0 amount of politicians that have sufficient experience to not be reliant on lobbyists (the main argument from that paper). The existence of term limits means that career politicians have to make very different career choices and legislative choices with respect to the law making they are trying to get done in that fixed window. It's not sufficient by itself without other reforms [1] but it's probably a necessary condition in terms of maintaining the health of our democracy.

> I mean... yes? Presidents have a huge sprawling infrastructure that supports them. If there's anything the back-to-back presidencies of Trump and biden has taught us, it's that the organization surrounding the office of President largely run things anyway (Trump because he was dangerously unhinged and biden because he's grossly mentally deficient).

And Bush 1 & 2, Obama & Clinton? Do you think a Representative's office doesn't run a lot of the day to day for them? Do you think a CEO doesn't have a lot of the same infrastructure? What exactly would you expect a President or any leader to do on their own? When has that ever been true? Not really sure what point you're trying to make.

> I think term limits are an attempt to treat a symptoms, rather than a problem. Career politicians are dangerous because of legal outside influence. I think campaign finance is the right place to strike. Money, via ads and other means, shouldn't be able to influence elections.

Term limits don't require a consistiutional amendment whereas your preferred place to strike requires either meaningfully changing the power balance of SCOTUS (which is fairly difficult) or a constitutional amendment to get around Citizen's united.

[1] Limiting when you can declare for office to within ~3-6 months before an election and having a black out period before electioneering are common steps many other sane democracies choose. It's not foolproof because you can have unofficial electioneering but it's a start. Limiting the representation so that you can only vote on certain things (police chiefs, AGs, school boards, judges, direct-to-citizen ballots like California & NY etc) are also things saner democracies avoid politicizing (+ an informed citizenry only has so much bandwidth - that's why we outsource representation). And also limiting election season so that it happens once every four years (i.e. you get city + state + federal representative every 4 years instead of elections every single year which results in very low turnout on the vast majority of elections and is extremely undemocratic). I'm aware a lot of these may be difficult to pass in the US and there can be real reasons that these exact proposals aren't the ones we'd want (and maybe constitutional concerns). But if we're already talking about changing the US constitution, these are probably easier reforms that would have more appeal. The fact that House members start campaigning for the next election at the conclusion of their current one and Senators start ~2 years after election means the vast majority of elected representatives are not actually focusing their time on what they've been elected to do.