Remedial unbribery

So, OK, quick review w/o any of the tangents that were apparently confusing to some:

1. Any given proposal — tax-cut, tax-hike, public works, whatever — must justly serve the public interest and promote the common good. Any politician advocating any kind of policy must demonstrate that the policy meets this test.

2. When politicians support proposals that result in immense financial benefit for themselves personally they have an even greater obligation to demonstrate that the proposal in question is truly in the interest of the entire public and not merely in their own interest. When you cash the check, you invite suspicion.

3. To consider off-limits any discussion of the personal financial benefits that politicians may have at stake in a particular policy debate paves the way for massive corruption.

4. Some policies that justly serve the public interest may also result in financial benefit for some politicians who support them. This is bound to occur. A lot. I have no problem with that, but in such cases the burden of proof lies with those politicians to demonstrate which way cause and effect is working.

5. If a politician advocates a policy that benefits him or her financially but on balance does not serve the public interest, then we can conclude that he or she is corrupt.

(I don't know if that's actually any clearer than the first three times I wrote it, but we'll see if the idea is again mangled beyond recognition in the comments thread.)