And it will continue to be ignored, and cause massive corruption, as long as money plays such a prominent role in elections. (I refer you to the egregious example of Elon X Musk.)
There should be no fund-raising, campaign contributions or commercial advertising of candidates: they should stand or fall by their own actions and speech. But how can their actions be known? Responsible journalism. How can their speeches be heard? Public media, newspaper interviews and personal appearances.
BTW Who decided it was a good idea to allow lobbying?

If law enforcement is not working against those guilty of breaking them, then we should look at what is making this flawed situation. Instead of focusing on the law, I believe we should try to figure out why the judiciary system is getting more rotten than ever. The problem is not the written law but those who don't want to apply it.

Instead of focusing on the law, I believe we should try to figure out why the judiciary system is getting more rotten than ever. — javi2541997

That's easy! Elected and appointed officials. The judiciary is tied to the political administration and the similarly financed electoral system. When the state administration is corrupt, district attorneys and judges are corrupted. When the federal administration is corrupt, federal judges are corrupted. Not all of them fall into that trap, but in every cycle, some go to the the dark side - and remain in office through the next several cycles. The overall effect, therefore, is a gradual increase in the percentage of corrupt jurists - especially in the supreme courts, where tenure is guaranteed.

Then the problem is the corruption of some judges or attorneys, right? I mean, the existence of the law (from an objective perspective) is not the main issue here; we can even have correct or good laws but corrupt judges. So, the problem is the person and not the nature of the law.

However, judges alone have the authority to interpret and apply the law. Why wouldn't a judge apply good law? :chin:

Then the problem is the corruption of some judges or attorneys, right? — javi2541997

An increasing number as elections grow more expensive, kickbacks in the form of gifts and vacations become more blatant, appointees to supreme courts more openly partisan and judges live longer with no mandatory retirement.

However, judges alone have the authority to interpret and apply the law. Why wouldn't a judge apply good law? — javi2541997

Because his corporate sponsor or political patron wants the bad law implemented or the bad man paroled or the opposition's good initiative stopped.

Because his corporate sponsor or political patron wants the bad law implemented. — Vera Mont

True.

This is why I propose a 'code of conduct' for those people and situations.

There could be a process where the corrupt get summoned to testify in court. But who could be the one who writes the subpoena, and what could be the correct process?

I see a light in the dark tunnel: only judges can control other judges through the code of conduct. It is not necessary to concede too much power to Supreme Court judges; and these could be controlled by ordinary ones in a courtroom similar to a disciplinary process.

There could be a process where the corrupt get summoned to testify in court. But who could be the one who writes the subpoena, and what could be the correct process? — javi2541997

There are procedures through the elected representatives. It was difficult and rare to impeach a federal supreme court justice (I expect it's also the case with state legislatures) but it's been done for proven corruption. The present US Supreme Court is spectacularly corrupt. The FBI and state regulating agencies can investigate and find ample evidence, but cannot enforce punishment, even if the cases are tried: an honest judge (still the majority, I believe) may convict, but a politically appointed and corrupt appellate court judge can simply reverse the ruling.
However, a corrupt administration can hurt in many ways an honest judge who rules against one of its bad laws or illegal actions.

This is why I propose a 'code of conduct' for those people and situations. — javi2541997

There is one - set by the US Judicial Conference (a body like the College of Physicians) but the problem, again, is enforcement. In a corrupt system, all organs and agencies are corrupted. This is not a local infection; it's full-blown septicemia.

I understand. But I was not thinking about the US administration. I was thinking of other countries where politics are not very relevant and the judiciary system is more used to being independent. It is hard to find out which one, but I guess Finland, Ireland, the UK, Japan, or Germany may be good examples. I wish we (Spanish-speaking nations) had a better procedure against corruption, but the system became a full-blown septicaemia, I suppose.

I will not give up, though. I still believe there are honest judges that work under a lot of pressure from corrupt politicians and agencies. Not all of the system is already dead.

Not all of the system is already dead. — javi2541997

In fact, some bad ones are improving. Still, the decline overall is distressing, and it's because of the political divisions, which affect law-making, litigation, legal actions, compliance with existing rules and law enforcement agencies. Government can meddle with the legal system at all levels from legislation to police hiring requirements. If the system is relatively clean and responsible to the voters, appointed judges can be quite free of influence; if the system is corrupt and obscure, even the most open election can be rigged.
It's not the structure of the judiciary or the rules set for that that count; it's the people in power.

Yep, I agree.

I believe we get to the same conclusion: the problem is the people in power and not the set of laws or rules. Some countries are lucky that they can combine both: good laws and honest people.

Some countries are lucky that they can combine both: good laws and honest people. — javi2541997

It's not luck. Humans are pretty much the same the world over, but some leaders have had more foresight in organizing their governance, invested more in the mental capability of the young, allowed for a robust communication and thus some populations have been more vigilant, less gullible.
It's not too mate for reform everywhere, but the obstacles get more challenging as systems deteriorate. In the US now, a huge upsurgence of civic awareness and activism is required - and it would meet with violent resistance: that is, something very close to a a revolution would have to take place. Not many people are brave enough to risk it, until they're really desperate.