> the appearance of impropriety

I feel like that is one of the bigger cultural shifts, particularly in politics, that has happened over the last decade. It used to be that the mere appearance of impropriety was enough to kill a political career. Now it seems like not only is the appearance irrelevant, actual evidence of impropriety is losing its effect too.

Yes, and in more and more cases, actual, overt, and open impropriety (not just evidence of it) serves to improve a politician's standing with the public. Nothing is out of bounds anymore. It doesn't matter what a politician does, how terrible it is: If they are doing it For The Team, then that team supports it.

The idea that appearance of impropriety is bad is a moral one. There are often problems when one attempts to legislate morality.

>> If I had the money and wanted to affect gov't policy I'd start by "gifting" gratuities to all sorts of politicians "for your past service." Most importantly, I'd spread that information far and wide.

Good thing you don't have the money then, because you would be going to prison. Paying a gratuity to a federal official is still a 2 year prison sentence under 18 U.S. Code § 201(c), and there are state laws against paying them to state officials.

All the court did was decide that 18 U.S. Code § 666 applied only to bribes, not gratuities.

The same is done with job offers, book deals, and speaking gigs.

Government officials are held to a higher ideal than a random businessperson. That seems good and desirable to me.

No they’re not. Government officials can take bribes and participate in insider trading.