In the week's excitement at our first clear view of bribery and corruption, some points may have been missed or given less attention than they deserve.
Reports and commentaries overflowed with the drama of Frank Dunlop's disclosures and all but choked on speculation as to who's on his list of compliant councillors.
What developers, their agents and the willing councillors have been fiddling with is housing - the shelter, amenities and local services that people and their communities can't do without. The fiddlers themselves, as described by those who watched them at close quarters, resemble nothing more than the wheeler-dealers at some steamy port who haggle over supplies sent in to keep a hungry people from starvation.
But the wheeling and dealing is not about the chance of a poorly paid job and a bed in a loft; it's about who grows fat on the needs of citizens, for housing is at the heart of most of our social and economic problems. The latest scandal couldn't have happened if it hadn't been for the corruption which is either embedded in our political system or encouraged - if not permitted - by it.
Judge Brian McCracken was writing about Charles Haughey and Ben Dunne when he concluded that it was quite unacceptable for a TD, Minister or Taoiseach to be supported by gifts from businessmen. McCracken wrote: "The possibility that political or financial favours could be sought in return for such gifts, or even given without being sought, is very high, and if such gifts are permissible, they would inevitably lead in some cases to bribery and corruption.
"It is also not acceptable that any person or commercial enterprise should make gifts in conditions of secrecy, no matter how well intentioned the motives may have been."
McCracken pointed directly at what was wrong about giving and receiving gifts. He demolished the argument that no favours had been sought or given and the claim that what was being doled out were political contributions made in the interests of democracy.
McCracken was right; and he was highly praised on all sides for his work. But the brazen excuses trotted out by Haughey, his cronies and hangers-on in the media are still parroted by his successors - in Fianna Fail and Fine Gael - and by their hangers-on. As if the lies had not been exposed already.
Of course, the way in which parties are funded suits the defenders of corruption. It's a feature of politics long acknowledged as bad for parties and bad for public life. But politicians who ideologically oppose State funding or fear an anti-State mood stoked up by sections of the media have been afraid to replace it.
Labour, the left and a few brave souls like Sean Fleming of Fianna Fail understand the urgent need for change. The begrudgers make threadbare excuses to drag their heels.
They're opposed to openness, to serious reform of local government, to making the Government more accountable to the Oireachtas and the Oireachtas more responsive to the needs of the electorate.
Like the witnesses who march into the tribunals and then find it difficult to remember anything more than their names, they call for a suspension of disbelief in the audience outside. So did the gang who appeared before the Public Accounts Committee to explain how, somehow, DIRT failed to be collected and half the population seemed to be living - for tax purposes - in a flat off Kilburn High Road.
Indeed, the cast of tribunal characters - some straight out of Damon Runyan, others from Bertholt Brecht - is beginning to look as if the script-writers are repeating themselves.
The developer Owen O'Callaghan made an earlier appearance in another show, in which Michael Lowry had a central role. And Liam Lawlor, whom I am glad to see back in the limelight, once figured as the chairman of a committee on State-sponsored companies which was examining in detail the affairs of the Sugar Company.
Unfortunately, he was simultaneously a non-executive director of one of Larry Goodman's companies and Goodman was showing a keen interest, as they say, in the Sugar Company. Lawlor had to resign from the committee, of course. But Bertie Ahern, who has either a very poor memory or a great sense of humour, sent him to the Committee on Members' Interests this time round.
The fact that Lawlor has now had to step aside from a second committee as a result of the Dunlop donations simply heightens the sense of deja vu. Others appearing in the theatre of planning and politics this week included the novelty couple Brennan and McGowan - builders in their spare time - one of whom used to put money on horses for George Redmond while the other conducted race nights for Ray Burke.
Either of them would have left poor Michael D Higgins's modest fundraisers in the ha'penny place. But when people stop talking in fivers or even hundreds and start talking in tens of thousands some commentators' shock turns to amazement.
On Wednesday Pat Rabbitte, who'd been stung by comments about what a bad day it had been "for politics", said: "It suits some people to say that all politicians are the same. Some even say that politicians who objected to developments are responsible for the housing crisis," the implication being houses would have been built if development had been allowed to continue unimpeded. The argument was tried long ago.
On January 26th, 1974 the headline over the main story on the front page of The Irish Times read: "Price Control Plan For Building Land". The plan would give local authorities the power to buy potential building land at use-value plus 25 per cent.
The views of those who believed it was better not to interfere with the market, prevailed. And if FF and FG do not take their courage in their hands now we're in for more of the same.
On a lighter note, Liam Lawlor reminded listeners to Morning Ireland yesterday that the latest bout of excitement had been whipped up by Sam Smyth's report on the front page of the Irish Independent of the impending trouble for John Bruton.
On Tuesday it was Dunlop who ran into trouble. And on Tuesday night Smyth was asked about the damage the lobbyist had sustained. "Frank Dunlop," he said, "could find himself in the same position as Charlie Haughey is in at the moment."
Too true. Haughey was hit by friendly fire when Lowry was the target of a report by Smyth. Now Bruton was target and Dunlop was hit. Those whom Smyth defends would be well advised to duck.