You can’t give such an ideologically homogenous group of people that much power over elections and candidates. People can’t be trusted to put aside their personal beliefs and value systems and act objectively.

You’re getting closer with juries. But the DC jury pool is extremely skewed. Its like Aragorn trying to get a fair trial in Mordor District Court.

> can’t give such an ideologically homogenous group of people that much power over elections and candidates

Agree. We also can’t tolerate the level of blatant corruption we have now.

The solution is something more flexible than we have now, but still with a high bar. The check is the courts. America didn’t fall apart when Bob Menendez went to jail.

> People can’t be trusted to put aside their personal beliefs and value systems and act objectively

We don’t need them to. Prosecutorial discretion means anyone can charged with anything. The test is whether it sticks. (The FBI already has, and has already abused, the powers you’re concerned about.)

Nobody is suggesting prosecutors be allowed to unilaterally jail politicians. If we trust voters to mind misconduct in office we should be able to trust them to read through charges.

> Agree. We also can’t tolerate the level of blatant corruption we have now.

Your proposal would replace petty corruption with institutional capture of elections by the legal profession. That’s a solution worse than the problem.

> If we trust voters to mind misconduct in office we should be able to trust them to read through charges.

You can’t trust a jury of 12 people in a handpicked jurisdiction, where evidence is carefully screened by lawyers and judges, to make such consequential decisions for the whole country.