Controversial position: There's nothing wrong with corruption in politics

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The first couple reasons seem like whataboutery. Until we have good examples of corruption being used to help the little guy, it basically doesn't matter that it could. Clientelism comes close as an example, but maybe we shouldn't be looking to Latin America (where clientelism is oftentimes the best of a few bad options) for our political structure.

     The third one misses the point, and the fourth one is subordinate to it. People are concerned insofar as it comes down to being a consistent advocate for certain issues. Most people would rather have someone on their side who they can trust to stay there than someone who is just there to please rich donors and will leave as soon as it is politically convenient to do so.

     The fifth point is a non sequitur. Politics can be rough and tumble without being grossly corrupt. Part of making that happen is the voters refusing to accept corruption from candidates for office.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I like how you present this as a "controversial" opinion when it is literally the conventional wisdom in DC and most state capitals.

     Many politicians dabble in corruption, but I doubt many would come out and offer an intellectual defense of corruption. In that way I would suggest the topic title is misleading: the position itself is not controversial (at least within the political class), but rather the arguments for it are controversial.

[Associate Justice PiT]

...a candidate who lost to a Reality TV star who was not particularly popular with the people who voted for him.

     Important point to emphasize here. Trump didn't win because people really loved him and what he stood for.