There is variance in all things. Believing that the absence of visible corruption is still proof of equivalent invisible corruption is unreasonable. And side

There is variance in all things. Believing that the absence of visible corruption is still proof of equivalent invisible corruption is unreasonable. And side note: corruption in politics is a weighted term. From one perspective, politics is literally the business of corruption. I.e. how to use democratic support to influence policy and procurement. In the US, until ~1878 (Rutherford B. Hayes presidency), it was the overt policy of both parties that political contributions were the price of office. And it took the assassination of James A. Garfield in 1881 by a spurned, insane spoils seeker to finally pass reform into law.