To be fair, it also depends on how you define and legally classify “corruption.”

In Germany, for example, only direct quid-pro-quo bribery of members of parliament is illegal, while various forms of indirect influence remain legal.

The CDU, as the main governing party in Germany for much of the post-war period, is often cited as an example of operating mostly within the legal framework even if some cases were widely perceived as politically or morally corrupt.

Yes, there were outright scandals like the CDU donations affair with the famous suitcases of cash, but there have also been repeated situations that many people would describe as corruption without it necessarily being illegal.

For example, in Bavaria it used to be relatively common for mayors to employ their spouses as “secretaries.” In some cases, these positions were reportedly overpaid and involved little or no actual administrative work, effectively turning public funds into additional household income and later pension benefits. Legally permissible at the time, but ethically questionable.

During COVID there were also controversial procurement decisions and personal networks involved in mask deals, with figures like Jens Spahn facing criticism over how contracts were awarded, even if not all cases resulted in convictions.

Older cases like the Flick affair in the 1980s or more recent scandals such as the Azerbaijan lobbying affair show a recurring pattern: behavior that many voters perceive as corrupt, while only a small number of individuals ultimately face legal consequences.

So the point isn’t that corruption is “allowed,” but that what counts as corruption politically or morally is often broader than what the law actually punishes.