I'm not sure paying more will help. It looks like greed can be boundless, so as long as power converts to money malicious actors will keep abusing it.
Perhaps we should make power unattractive to such types instead, making it not lucrative so that only crazy* individuals who are content with good enough clean salary seek it out of dumb* desire to make the world better.
I don't have the links at the moment, but there were some fairly well-researched articles I saw a year or two back about this. The gist was that while our Congresspeople are, indeed, paid quite well by normal-person standards, because of the things they're expected to do (for instance, keep both a home in their district and one in Washington, DC—one of the country's hottest real estate markets), the amount they are paid is low enough that it does lead to significant additional (mostly legalized) bribery.
Making elected positions pay very little, rather than discouraging people who seek wealth, will limit them (even more) to people who are already wealthy, because they will be able to bankroll the expected lifestyle out of pocket.
Furthermore, for those who go into politics looking for money (as opposed to those who go into it looking for power, which is a related, but separate, issue), the salary is peanuts compared to the kinds of money they can get from lobbyists, or as a lobbyist themselves once they leave office. So reducing the salary will have very little effect on that.
I'm not saying "very little", I'm saying make them pay just enough for a reasonable life and make sure the position of power itself does not convert to money in any way.
> will limit them (even more) to people who are already wealthy, because they will be able to bankroll the expected lifestyle out of pocket.
First, you are ignoring the part about "crazy". If they are willing to go into this knowing they will only be losing money, maybe they have some clean motivations guiding them?
> Furthermore, for those who go into politics looking for money (as opposed to those who go into it looking for power, which is a related, but separate, issue), the salary is peanuts compared to the kinds of money they can get from lobbyists, or as a lobbyist themselves once they leave office
That's what I mean by "make it not lucrative". Power converting to money is a bigger problem than salaries.
As it is, people in power who are already clearly far, far from being poor effect laws just after their relatives sell/buy stocks affected--it's almost as if there's no amount you can pay them to squelch the greed.
If power should not be attractive to people with no integrity pathologically addicted to increasing wealth, then increasing salaries will achieve effect the opposite of desired. They will put their huge salary into stocks then pass laws favorable to their portfolio.
Perhaps we should make power unattractive to such types instead, making it not lucrative so that only crazy* individuals who are content with good enough clean salary seek it out of dumb* desire to make the world better.
* In a good way, obviously.