>

I've had this discussion about campaign finance reform and the claims of corruption a few times.  In my view if our system is by, of and for the people the responsibility lies with the people.  The route to improving the system lies in making sure we have a free, independent and effective press.  The current campaign laws require disclosure of funding and that needs to be robust.
What I don't see is writing concerns off as corruption, stupidity and some kind of mass trickery.
IMO by far the biggest problem we have is that the signal to noise ratio in the so-called-press has dropped dramatically over the last few decade or so.  It is hard to find reliable fact based objective information these days.
And once they’re there it’s very easy to rationalize their policy decisions, even ones they previously disagreed with, because their financial future relies on it and humans are good at rationalizing.

You just defined corruption. >

Not necessarily, I think overt corruption requires a conscious act of doing something in return for money. I don’t think these people are aware of what they’re doing, they can’t because they have to rationalize it away to keep their position. Whereas corrupt people may rationalize away why they’re corrupt (ie taking money to get my child through college), these people rationalize away the idea they are corrupt in the first place. >


overt corruption requires a conscious act of doing something in return for money
because their financial future relies on it

People rarely think they're evil. >

I agree, that’s sort of what I’m trying to say. I just think most of the “corruption” we see is the result of genuine but not so bright people put in positions of power rather than smart but corrupt people in power. >

I don't think someone needs to think what they're doing is wrong to be corrupt. Plenty of shitty, corrupt people think that corruption is a natural part of government. That doesn't make them not corrupt. >

Sure, I’m not saying these people aren’t “corrupt” I’m just trying to say that they aren’t being malicious or realize what they’re doing. >

No, you're saying that they think corruption is acceptable. They are making decisions, even those they disagree with, because 'their financial future relies on it'. They know exactly what they're doing. >

No, I’m trying to say that having their financial future relying on it makes it easy for them to rationalize away not changing their perspective and cutting themselves off from opportunities to do so. It isn’t a conscious choice though, it’s a unconscious action. >

Unconciously corrupt people are still corrupt! >

That seems pretty semantic, and ignoring my point. People assume that corrupt politicians are smart and realize what they’re doing. I’m sure you’ve heard the people who think Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi are masterminds who know exactly what they’re doing and how they’re hurting people. But I really don’t think that’s true, I think they at least on the surface really believe what they say, and that’s why they have their power in the first place. >

Please add your working definition of corrupt ro the post. >

Will do! >

Yea… financial futures rely on rich people’s personal beliefs they don’t believe in before they have to have some weird rationalization with their morales. Idk seems corrupt >

What difference does it make?
I call this the grifter fallacy. That somehow it makes a difference if someone grifting actually believes their bullshit. 
I don’t think Barrack Obama went into a smoke filled room and shook hands with the CEOs and presidents of banks and Wall Street. But he took their money and when it came time to make decisions about them, he always favored them. 
If the result is the same, what is the difference? If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it’s a duck. >

I think the difference shows how we address these problems. If you think those in power are just morally inferior innately, then all you need to do is change the people in power and things will get better. You don’t need real systemic change. Whereas if the system is pushing people who align with the interests of the upper class, that required a systemic change not just changing who’s in power. >

Aren't you saying we are all corrupt.  The electorate.
If representative government isn't working because the people aren't noticing elected officials are acting against their best interests arent we all corrupt?  Doesn't it mean we don't have a free press informing us and we don't care or we are ignoring it.
In a representative government getting re-elected is an indication you are on the right track.  Given such feedback how is it corrupt to carry on?   Seems to me its the electorate that's the problem. >

No, I’m simply saying that the electorate often doesn’t get a choice for who they pick, they’re picked by the ones with money well beforehand. 
Plus we’re all effected by the information we’re exposed to, and some people are kept in media bubbles intentionally by those at the top for profit (eg twitter and facebook promoting controversial posts that drive more engagement). It’s not people being dumb, it’s people being tricked by the system.