> "corruption" that is acceptable, even necessary, under our current system

> There isn't really a good word for the former kind of "corruption" because it's not corruption, it's just the Way Things Work

> the only way to get rid of it is to change the law, not to cast aspersions on those who engage in it

See, this is exactly what I meant when I said, "It feels to me like there's a kind of excuse being given here, like, You have to be corrupt in order to win, so it's not truly corruption."

I also said, "I don't buy that." In fact I vehemently disagree.

I don't actually think that money in politics corrupts politicians as much as politics appeals to the corruptible, i.e., the "type of ladder-climber" that I mentioned. It's possible to be "courageous" (i.e., not corrupt) in politics, as long as you care more about your principles than you do about election and especially reelection. "Type 1 corruption", as you call it, is a deliberate choice.

Your same argument could be made about business in general, that everyone in business must be unethical, because unethical businesspeople are more likely to succeed. But empirically it's untrue that everyone in business is unethical. Although there are indeed many, too many in business who are unethical, and perhaps they're more successful on average, there are also many people in business who refuse to throw out their principles for the sake of more cash. There are good people in the business world.

What differentiates politics, in large part, is that it's not a free, competitive market; rather, it's a duopoly. Thus, if you want to be part of one of the two major parties, who are already corrupted by money, you've got to play along with the team, join the perverse game. Otherwise they'll crush you like a bug. Perhaps you could make some excuses for the minor party politicians, but there are no excuses for the leaders of the parties. They're the ringleaders of the whole corrupt operation.

There's a reason that our elections are so close, and that so many potential voters choose to sit them out entirely every cycle: the non-partisans don't see much practical difference between the two parties. There's a difference in rhetoric, but as far as taking significant action to help the majority of people, both parties do very little. Voters are not given the option of making big progress in solving societal problems; it's just a continual back-and-forth of replacing one party with the other in order to stop the latest horror. The electorate doesn't have much if any real hope, despite the empty promises of "hope" from the latest charismatic candidates; we've heard that rhetoric before and been disappointed. The only thing the parties offer is scaremongering: the other party is worse! Which may be true, but it's tiring, repetitive. In the end, the two parties can't help the public because they don't really want to help the public; above all, they want to help themselves to power and prestige. One of the dirty secrets is that powerful politicians love hobnobbing with wealthy business leaders. They don't really have to be forced to take the campaign contributions. It's one big, happy, exclusive, incestuous social club, with a revolving door between the public sector and the private sector.

> This has gotten even harder since Citizens United because it moved the line that delineates the two kinds of corruption, making things that were once unacceptable now acceptable or even necessary.

I'm not buying this. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that politicians were "holding back" in their level of "type 1" corruption before Citizens United, and it's not clear how Citizens United is relevant to "type 2" corruption.

> that includes every democratically elected official in the country.

I wouldn't go that far. I've seem some pretty good people. Though they usually don't ascend to the upper echelons of national politics.