"Onto them" = "You guys are doing this wrong. You don't give the money to ME, you 'donate it' to THIS organization in exchange for a receipt and get a tax write off and THEY buy me things as part of 're-election' activities. All 'perfectly' legal... ish."
I wonder how many of them were glad to accept an obvious bribe, and how many got "stuck" by arcane and complex laws. For example, it's illegal for someone to donate money to a campaign on behalf of someone else in many cases (because some people aren't allowed to donate, or are restricted in the amount). Other times, someone needs to recuse themselves from certain actions because they have an interest in a matter, but it's not always obvious (like a family member owns stock in an oil company among LOTS of others, but you're regulating oil businesses).
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” Lavrentiy Beria
I do agree with you that these sorts of laws can be very obscure and all but the most brazen or inexperienced/inept at the game of bribery would accept anything approaching a straight “do this and maybe someone will drop this case full of dollars here… wink wink” sort of scenario. I honestly don’t see it mattering a whole lot though. These are people we elect to navigate complex and arcane laws and systems. Their ability to effectively and responsibly do their job depends upon their ability to move through the “system” and effect (hopefully) the will of the people they represent. Getting caught up in a bribery sting does not demonstrate an ability to conduct oneself while being mindful of the complex intricacies of the system- regardless of one’s stance on the ethics and particulars of graft and “dirt” in politics. I don’t expect the janitor to know every rule at the company, but the CEO whom is ultimately responsible for every rule and person at the company- I expect them to know.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” Lavrentiy Beria