In America, it happens behind closed doors in boardrooms and offices.
'Unlimited Campaign Contributions' is nothing more than newspeak for corruption. By very definition, it is about paying a person in a position of power to make a decision that is in your favor.
You are equating two different things. One, giving a politician money they can spend on personal luxuries for a political favor. Two, giving a strictly-regulated campaign money it can spend on advertising, political functions, et cetera, or less-regulated PACs.
Personal versus political benefits is one major diffference. Prevalence, and the necessity of engaging with corrupt organs to survive and thrive, is another.
Claiming corruption in America even rivals most of the world is unsubstantiated. The inverse is well substantiated.
Nobody cares about the little sticker you put on your license plate. It's a $5 fundraiser. In my state I think the non-LEO license plates you're talking about are an extra $30 or $40 on top of your normal registration fees.
The only thing I've ever heard having any affect like what you're implying are the "police courtesy cards," PBA/FOP cards, whatever they're called in your state. And I haven't heard of them actually preventing any punishment, just incurring more of it.
The only purpose they can serve is to corrupt.
The whole point of those interactions is to not talk about what happened.
Small gifts can have a big effect. There’s a reason drug reps always want to buy doctors lunches. It’s not for charity: that low double-digit “gift” pays for itself. And the out-the-door cost is $hundreds.
So when I call my elected leaders to voice up about an issue, that's bribery? Because what I'm doing is lobbying. Or, if I call my elected leader and patch in a friend in another state who's more knowledgeable about the domain, is that lobbying?
If it's not, then what if my friend and I both patch in an out-of-district friend? What if we form a formal club? If we want (a) freedom of political speech and (b) freedom of political assembly, it gets really hard to separate a grassroots interest group from a destructive commercial one. (And should civic interests always trump commercial interests? That's a political question, too!)
TL; DR Democracy can't exist without lobbying. With respect to paid lobbying, I might agree, but the devil's in the details.
"Here's a sports car for you if you vote the way I like on this issue": this suggests that the sports car bought the vote, and so is indicative of corruption.
"I like your position on this issue, here's some money for your campaign to help you get elected, and that can only be spent for that": this suggests that the position is the cause of the money, not the other way around, and so is not indicative of corruption.
The political benefits beget personal benefits. That's the point.
They are both corruption under two different names, no matter how you prevaricate.
Bob, who agrees with those policies and positions, gives a large donation to Alice's campaign.
Alice wins, and works toward those positions and policies.
Are you saying Alice is corrupt because her campaign took money from someone who agreed with her stated positions?
There's also the personal utility view of this - if it is power they desire and you finance their acquisition of power, isn't that in a sense bribery? If they want power, why buy them a sports car....
It's clear to me that we need real campaign finance reform. No more dark money or third party political action committees. The fate of our democracy probably depends on it.
These enormous sums are far outside the normal. It reeks corruption.
You forgot to add "for political favor" on the end of the third sentence.
I don't care how they're spending it, they're being given it because the person doing the giving wants a decision made in their favor. That's the very definition of bribery and corruption.
i.e. High Mr. Politician. I will give you $600,000 in "campaign contributions" so long as you vote against this particular thing that would be very inconvenient to my profits.
Your comment makes no sense at all. Do you believe that in the land where military men carrying AK47 overtly demand bribes you don't see any corruption happening behind closed doors?
In fact, the only reasonable take from your observation is that there might be corruption in the US but at least society is effective at shutting down corruption by lowly law enforcement officers.
Why do you think that is? Is it Ideology? Or is it just profitable to get that decision in their favor?
Sounds blatantly clear to me.