There is a thought-provoking paper in the Cornell Law Review by Zephyr Teachout on corruption in the body politic. He states that the founding fathers of the US Constitution had a broad definition of corruption
To the Delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy.
whereas today a narrower definition is taken – that is a quid pro quo transaction where government action is taken in exchange for a bribe or other recompense.
Yet some of the recent so-called tax bill arguably involves corruption in the older sense – a number of senators receive personal benefit from the low pass-through tax rules to passive real estate investments. The parts of the tax bill that provide such personal benefits to individual congressmen and senators do not at all benefit the US community at large. Surely that is an example of corruption – the legislators have abused their positions for personal gain?
One can think of many examples like this where members of the executive and legislature have used their public positions for private gain, which does not have to be monetary.
While public servants and politicians in western countries claim that corruption has been stamped out (compared to some developing countries such as Zimbabwe), one doesn’t have to look to far to find examples of practices that are pretty close to being corrupt.