1. The issue here is not broadening or weakening or diluting the term corrupt. US government corruption is concentrated at the top. The other examples you gave

1. The issue here is not broadening or weakening or diluting the term corrupt. US government corruption is concentrated at the top. The other examples you gave have low level and high level corruption, but they are different things. Washington corruption is structural, but no less real. Where I live (oz) the state gov. as one of it's first acts was to restructure the crime and corruption commission (effectively taking it out of action for 18 months). Then they promptly rezoned a bunch of land owned by people who donated to the party coffers. Would you regard that as corrupt? 2. People agree with corporations because corporations frame the question, the debate and the answer. Same thing happens here in oz, where murdoch owns 70% of the papers. People are so content with their gov in the US that they vote in ever increasing numbers? People don't care and are not engaged by politics because they are taught from a very young age to accept that they can have no effect on the system. You can choose between tweedledum or tweedledee (or kang and kodos, if you prefer). This was lessig's point. Money has corrupted the process before you even get to a choice. "More regulation or less regulation?" People are always going to disagree over process. Especially if you frame it in such oversimplified terms. Regulation on disallowing a company to pump cyanide* into the water supply? Find someone who disagrees with this! *and no, this is not hyperbole, just lack of regulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Baia_Mare_cyanide_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Baia_Mare_cyanide_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ok_Tedi_Environmental_Disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ok_Tedi_Environmental_Disaster