we have term limits, they're called elections. If the electorate of a district or state doesn't want to remove their elected official why should they? isn't there something to be said of letting our officials learn the job and then keep them around, rather than fire them once they understand the job? As for the advantages of incumbency, why not simply work to eliminate those? start by eliminating franking privileges and establish a nonpartisan redistricting commission for every state.
Money is a trickier wicket, but there are things that can be done. It would likely require a constitutional amendment, but superpacs could be eliminated, money for state election and possibly some federal elections could be limited to only instate donors (although there's an argument that's worse) or a nationwide mandatory public financing system could be established but a lot of evidence suggests that would hep the incumbents a lot more than the challengers)
There are a lot of ways to attempt to fix the problem with congress, but term limits seem silly. If the public doesn't like someone they'll remove that person from office. if not, then either they were either well liked, or the opposition didn't try hard enough enough. term limits is like forcing the best athletes out of the race so other, lesser challengers have a chance.