Lets be honest, the common American does not have the bargaining power to corrupt anyone powerful in their favor unless they move to the third world where their dollars go further and corruption is even more accessible.
This is the point of left IMO: to collectively develop the power to corrupt things in favor of workers. This was the point of Tammany Hall. Some Irish immigrant off the boat in 1890 was not a Democrat because he believed in liberalism, but because his ward healer got his brother a job in the sanitation department. When organized labor is strong, they can get Democrats to pass pro-labor policies. The point of all political economy is to corrupt the system of money and power in your personal favor (including your friends, people with similar class interests, your family, etc.). Sometimes that means "anti-corruption" but it's simply a bad idea (pointless, stupid, naive) to point out that some official is corrupt if they are doing what you want them to instead of what someone else does.
I agree to an extent, but I also think this is kind of kicking the can down the road: how do workers collectively decide what is in their interest and what isn't? The historically successful socialist answers to this question have generally ranged from "something that looks a lot like liberal democracy" to "something that looks a lot like oligarchic despotism".
Sure, that's the tough part of left politics. Capital has it easy, they can just pay people to do what they want. We have to get along and (more or less) agree.
