Corruption definitely exists as people are periodically convicted for it, but outside of those convictions the majority of talk about it seems to be a cope for the failures of systems we create freely. This writer references a corruption conviction but then misrepresents its overturning by the supreme court as more corruption when the court unanimously just set a probably agreeable definition and allowed the case to be persued under this definition. Once you do any digging on most claims of corruption you find inconvenient constraints and facts that most people have no understanding of that take the righteousness out of the claims.

Corruption is overwhelmingly an easy scapegoat you can gesture towards and have people agree with you without much effort. If we think there's something that is corruption that isn't covered by the legal code we can agree on what that is and push for it in the legal system. If we think our executives aren't enforcing our legal code we are the ones who elect them. If the problem is that no one cares enough to make the "right" decisions then whining about elites isn't going to do anything.