Anti-corruption laws don't deal with collusions much, as there is no tangible proof of "pay for play" in such situations. Look at the US Senator Menedez case of late: he and his wife are stupid to accept cash, gold bars, Benz cars, etc. Sophisticated players in the beltway don't accept such "play for cash", because these colluders trust each other beyond the term limits.

> and corruption is actually being prosecuted.

In which world do you live?

> To have less incentives, you’d actually have to pay politicians more

This theory presumes that when people have more money, their desire to have even more money diminishes. This presumption is not true.

(It might be somewhat true for common sorts of people who find pleasure in simple things and only want enough money to satisfy their basic material needs (food, shelter, medical care). But it's definitely not true when you're talking about people with high levels of ambition, which includes virtually all politicians.)

Oh, yea I'm for paying politicians directly. Meant more like, the money you need to run a campaign