[robertlagrant]

> And that is a much harder task. Because you could replace employees until the cows come home, if the system remains the same nothing will really change.

There are lots of things where we trust individuals to do a good job. If we can identify things as being the results of corruption via lobbying, why not fire them or prosecute them?

[jacquesm]

> If we can identify things as being the results of corruption via lobbying, why not fire them or prosecute them?

That's an excellent question. In many places 'lobbying' is legal, technically it is supposedly to inform the clueless legislators about various interests. But in practice it very quickly turns into 'soft' corruption, meetings in holiday resorts (oh, do bring your family) and so on. Whatever lines are drawn the amount of money available to get around them is practically infinite and politicians (and civil servants) are not all equally good at determining when they are targeted and might be across the line before they realize it (and then it gets much harder to go back than to have never crossed it before).

Occasionally people are terminated, and occasionally there are prosecutions. But there is a very large amount of information about who may have been involved in corruption and only a limited amount of prosecution and investigatory power so the bulk of these cases will end up being ignored.

[robertlagrant]

> politicians (and civil servants) are not all equally good at determining when they are targeted and might be across the line before they realize it (and then it gets much harder to go back than to have never crossed it before).

I don't think many people would get such a pass. The whole point of paying them from money taken from people's incomes is so they can be impartial. There's no point having them if they don't add value.

[jacquesm]

> I don't think many people would get such a pass.

You'd be surprised. Especially if the last review of the rules is a while ago or if they have been recently updated. People are sloppy, especially if they think nobody is looking and that it doesn't matter.

> The whole point of paying them from money taken from people's incomes is so they can be impartial.

That's the theory, but as the US supreme court proves that doesn't mean much.

> There's no point having them if they don't add value.

It's never that black and white except for the most extreme cases and those are the ones that in the end usually do make it to prosecution. Also note that in the EU different member states have entirely different views on what constitutes corruption and normality.