[rincebrain]

It's also a very hard line to draw, in some cases, since you can have the right things happening for the wrong reasons.

If a bill contains funding to help fix a main street in a city that was destroyed by a natural disaster, is that corruption?

What if there's 500 other destroyed main streets and that one got picked?

What if it was destroyed by decades of the local gov't neglecting it?

What if it was included because you directly bribed the person writing the bill?

What if it was included because you did some horse trading and gave them something they wanted in another bill you wrote?

The intent there is not to argue that defining corruption is impossible or futile, but that some people might reasonably argue different sides of whether something was corruption without either side obviously being morally bankrupt.