Gs_Dirtboy, my interpretation of a legal concept -brive- is regarding the Convention Against Corruption of UN.
According with article 15, there is a brive when a public officer (like a politician) receives money for him, for another person or for an institution, it means, for the party during the campaign, and this money influence his behaviour.
So, it is not important how he spends the money as you assert, instead, it is important if his behaviour is influenced by this disinterested "donation" or not.
The scandal of Jack Abramoff showed the way lobby really works: politicians receive money and they give favors back.
For you seems to be a great institution because of publicity while for the rest of the world lobbying is a scandal because it is seen as corruption institutionalized.
However, it is better when there is corruption only in the high levels instead in all the levels, even very low, like it happens here.
But this off topic began because I asserted that there is always corruption, when the State is big, it happends mainly inside the State, when it is small, then you have mainly private corruption that has low profile and less public exposure until it is too late. Enron is a good example, oil companies, perhaps, another. Seems that they were the only benefit with the war and occupation of the oild reserves of the middle east and the unexplained rise in oil prices as they now have more reserves ¿?. As you know, there were no massive destruction weapons and to have more stock should make the price drop.
The Convention against the Corruption has a chapter regarding private corruption too.
Comming back to the topic, what happens with wheat and tomatoes is a good example of private corruption instead of bad policies of the government. This is my statement.
And in this point a clarification, there are many bad policies in the government, but this is not the case.
