Nah, it just creates an in-group ("we know that corrupt politicians can get away with it"), and an out-group ("let's avoid corruption, since we'll get caught").
> the trick is not not looking
Unintentional double negative there, I think.
Anyway, regardless of their intended meaning, my point about in- and out-groups stands.
You interpreted it pretty differently from what I mean: Investigation-less corruption is often unofficially known/suspected, but can't be acted on. Investiation enables acting on it.
Of course the laws need to he tight on corruption in the first place. The kinds of corruption seen in the US are typically perfectly legal (we also have loopholes that should be closed, which makes me wonder why people often choose the illegal forms of corruption).