You're saying that term limits reduce corruption?

That's in fact not at all what the research says. There's a decent amount of research that suggests that they actually increase corruption. There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

This is a classic one of those ideas that many people intuitively "feel" makes sense but is actually just terrible policy.

> That's in fact not at all what the research says.

> There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

There are a lot of factors beyond term limits that influence this kind of research. The most important detail is to remember that corruption spans more than external influence. Institutional ossification has benefits and drawbacks. The drawbacks have outweighed the benefits, historically in the US and England. It was literally baked into the US Constitution to ensure this would not repeat for the US head of state. Notably the Supreme Court was baked in as a lifetime appointment. Granted, the remaining political bodies have not followed suit, I think it's clear that this has had a negative consequence due to the aforementioned entrenchment of the political parties.

> There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

It is incorrect to claim that is the only effect. I also don't believe that the conclusion is correct. I do believe it's closer to your initial statement.

> it's just a way for [legislators] to not take responsibility for their voting.

ie It shows a lack of care in executing the responsibilities of the elected position, which is why they barely do anything but campaign at the federal level.