Respectfully, I disagree.
I am uncomfortable with point number two, because that should be up to the voters--an underage drinking arrest in college shouldn't disallow someone from getting elected. And the third one, that could be turned into political hay.
And who would investigate Congress?
I understand your contention and I welcome this opportunity to respond to it. These are my expressed opinions, so you won't see any supporting links.
I firmly believe that anybody who calls himself a
leader at the national level, indeed just about any level where you're involved with making decisions that affect people's lives, need to conform to a standard of behavior that is reflective and supportive of the laws on the books. This means that those who stray from the law and are caught, convicted, and punished have forfeited the responsibility of leading. We can quibble all day long about misdemeanor offenses, different classes of felonies, etc., but I think that a person who professes to want to aspire to one of the highest offices in the land -- as a US Congressman or Senator -- should be upholding those values and demonstrating them through their own behavior, past and present.
We see over and over and over again examples of congressional malfeasance and graft, greed and corruption that certainly isn't new, but has soured our collective opinions of our elected "leaders" to the point that cynicism is a polite word anymore.
Political hay, regarding your contention with Point #3, is what it's all about. If Congresscritter is under investigation, he's simply ineligible to run again until the issue is resolved one way or the other. This stops the foot-dragging and throwing up roadblocks such that these so-called "investigations" go on for months and years.
Any "committee" that calls itself any kind of "ethics committee" within Congress is a fundamental joke. They're an insult to our collective intelligence. I'm supposed to believe that congresscritter x is supposed to really dig into the allegations on congresscritter y when congresscritter x needs congresscritter's y support on a contentious bill? Ludicrous on its face.
As to who investigates Congress, that's a very good question.
1. Every Congressman allocates 5% of his salary to a fund that is used to receive, review, investigate, and act on allegations of congress' illegal activities. This is done up front. If a Congressman goes through his career without being investigated, his salary is reimbursed, less interest earned. Again, we can get wrapped around the axle with definitions here, but for the sake of brevity, the rules that Congress makes for itself, along with the laws that we all live under, comprise the standard against which these people are judged.
2. Who investigates Congress? Ordinary people do, much in the way that we serve on juries. These people come from the district or state that elected the alleged perp. Except that these ordinary people, when called to serve on such a committee, do so not at the risk of sustaining a financial or career-based penalty (because they'll be compensated for their service and because the law will protect and hold their jobs).
3. Investigations should not take longer than 3 months to fully explore. If they take longer, the committee publishes a report that explains why it's taking longer. Far too many times, investigations drag on and on and on with no resolution for the simple reason there's no incentive to resolve the issue. Committees are not fully compensated until the investigation is complete and is reviewed.
4. All kinds of problems will surface with this kind of proposal, of that I'm sure. Who is to say that committee member x has a clue about the complexities of ethical behavior and the law? I'm not sure how to respond to that except to say that in order for a committee member to serve, there would have to be a screening process again in the manner that a jury is selected.
My main point is, stuff doesn't get done unless there's an incentive for it to get done. Systems are designed with that in mind - that mandated completion is the expectation within the prescribed time window. Exceptions are allowed, with justification.
Congress investigating itself is a joke. Common sense in the hands of ordinary people will hold their elected officials accountable.
