This argument seems silly.
Even if you try to say that 'elected officials should at least pay for it in corruption-related charges/investigations'... What major elected officials haven't been accused of corruption in some way, at one point or another? Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc, all had various potential corruption charges/investigations during their presidencies; and that's without looking into their Congressional/other public careers.
As much as people may like to think of most higher public officials as moneybag-millionaires, not all of them are, and essentially requiring that they're able to put up the cash to defend themselves in whatever inevitable charges come their way (whether within reason or not), only further contributes to the problem of having to be rich to win and hold a public office.
If you're found guilty, that's another case all together; of course the state should be able to (and maybe even be expected to) seek reimbursement, in most cases.