Yet Canadian politics clings to the distinction. Whether this arises from a bureaucratic insistence that corruption is not corruption until a judge says it is, or whether it is rooted in the suspicion that a broader definition would engulf the whole of our political culture, we seem peculiarly reluctant to call a spade a kickback.

Consider the emerging scandal over Liberal fundraising tactics in Quebec in the runup to the last election. The RCMP are investigating whether party officials demanded corporations make hefty contributions to the party's campaign as the price of approving their applications for grants from the federal Transitional Jobs Fund -- or, if you prefer, that they offered to approve their applications in exchange for the contributions. The Opposition wants to know whether the relevant members of the cabinet knew what their hirelings were allegedly up to.

If it can be proved that party officials made an explicit link between specific government grants and specific contributions to the party -- that is to say, that they were engaged in the practice of selling influence, as defined in the Criminal Code -- then we will all know that it is indeed a scandal. If, worse, it is found that ministers of the crown knew of the practice, and did nothing, or worse still, tried to cover it up, or worse yet, were in on the game from the start, then heads will roll, charges will be laid, and we will all congratulate ourselves that the system works.

But anything short of that -- ah, well now, that's business as usual. Or politics as usual. Or some commingling of the two. As usual.

Now consider the two halves of the scandal separately: the giving of grants to corporations by governments, as under the Transitional Jobs Fund, and the giving of contributions to parties by corporations.

The Transitional Jobs Fund was established as part of last year's package of reforms to Unemployment Insurance. Besides changing the name of the program to Employment Insurance, the Liberals imposed some mild restrictions on the availability and duration of benefits. This made many Liberal backbenchers uneasy, especially in ridings that are heavily dependent on seasonal industries -- which is to say, heavily dependent on EI.

So the TJF was created, with $300 million to spend over three years "creating jobs" in areas of high unemployment.

Now the one thing we know after many decades of experience with these grants is that the only jobs they are really about are the jobs of the M.P.s who hand them out. Successive federal governments have poured billions of dollars into Atlantic Canada and northern and eastern Quebec, with the explicit aim -- and, on the whole, the effect -- of buying their allegiance to the party in power: usually the Liberals.

If less explicit a transaction than the activities now under investigation, it is no less an exchange. The provision of public funds in general is calculated to "influence" the voting public. And the availability of funds in particular may be expected to encourage their prospective corporate recipients to be quick with their contributions to the party.

There is in fact no limit on the amount of money that corporations may give to a political party. The most stringent restraint that the parties have seen fit to impose is to limit the amount of the contribution that the corporation may fob off on the taxpayer, in the form of a tax credit. Possibly these are not attached to any one government favour in particular. But it is hard to believe they are not made in the expectation of favourable treatment in general.

Yet both sides to the transaction are mortally offended at the suggestion that there is any link between the two. The provision of grants, we are asked to accept, is wholly unconnected with politics -- though each and every one must be vetted by the appropriate regional "political" minister before going through. Corporations that write cheques in the thousands of dollars to political parties, it is stoutly insisted, do so only to "support the democratic process." This defence presumably extends to the two corporations in the Prime Minister's own riding, who soon after receiving their grants from the TJF made contributions to Jean Chretien's personal campaign fund.

To stand on the legal definition of corruption is to give sanction to this sort of nod-and-a-winkery. If the RCMP do turn up evidence of criminal acts, the crime will only be to have made explicit what is already understood implicitly: the mutual exchange of money and influence between governments and corporations that is rife throughout our political system, the crime that dare not speak its name.