It's not a very well written syllogism. The first premise would be better written "all power always corrupts", but if we are charitable and do not consider the meaning of the words it appears to be technically valid.
However, if we consider the intended meanings it seems likely that it includes an equivocation. For it to be truly valid the meaning of "power" must be exactly the same in both cases.
"Power corrupts" is a misquote. The original wording was "power tends to corrupt" (and note that this does not agree with the more rigourous wording I suggest above). And in context it referred to the political power of high office. Obviously the "power" that is knowledge is not identical to this power, so I would have to judge the syllogism invalid.