THE McCracken tribunal has gone away, not for good - as many who first called for it had begun to hope - but to continue its investigations in London and the Cayman Islands.
The Opposition parties had feared it might adjourn after the Dunnes and their associates had been heard but before members of the Government could be questioned.
That hasn't happened. Nor has the Government contrived to add to the usual advantage of timing an election by ensuring that the dissolution of the Dail coincided with the tribunal's adjournment.
How this was to be engineered and precisely what it might achieve wasn't clear: politicians often credit their opponents with Machiavellian motives and magical powers.
In this case, neither Machiavelli nor Merlin seems to have been at work. But the Opposition's worries persist.
Apart from John Bruton's variations on the theme of an FG leader's role in fund raising, as explained first to the beef tribunal and later to Mr Justice Brian McCracken, nothing untoward has come to light.
(Before Mr Justice Liam Hamilton, Mr Bruton had given the impression that as a rule leaders knew little or nothing of funds or donors. To Judge McCracken he explained how he'd canvassed Ben Dunne in person to help FG avoid financial disaster.)
Fianna Fail's worries persist, I suspect, because what the tribunal has yet to hear is the evidence it has obtained (or is obtaining) from or about Michael Lowry and Charles Haughey.
When Mr Lowry appears before Judge McCracken, he faces the serious questions raised by Mr Dunne's evidence as well as those already aired.
IT'S up to him to respond to the claim that an off-shore bank account had been opened on his behalf and to explain why he didn't include it in the account of his affairs that he gave to the Dail.
His relationship with Mr Dunne was different from that of Mr Bruton, Mr Dukes and their colleagues: Mr Lowry was to all intents and purposes employed by Dunnes Stores; the others solicited, received and passed on donations to the party.
Mr Haughey, too, is in a separate category, because of the amounts said to have been involved - over six times the FG total, for all that party's bowing and scraping - and because the funds were said to have been sought for private, not political, reasons.
The distinctions between donations and the different donor-recipient relationships are not made by those who prefer to tar all politicians with the same brush and rattle on about Ben Dunne's supposed generosity.
But neither the company's suppliers, of whom Mr Lowry was one, nor its employees, appear to have enjoyed the generosity which, some say, was spontaneously showered on politicians.
It doesn't suit the forelock-touching commentators to say so, either because it would tarnish the John Wayne image they like to portray or complicate the simple story of political sleaze they prefer to tell.
Unfortunately, the story is far more complicated and the stakes are higher than the public has been led to believe.
For instance, it's generally accepted that Mr Dunne made no demands of the parties or politicians to whose funds he contributed. The political witnesses at the tribunal were unanimous: he neither sought favours, nor was he offered any.
But that's not the end of the matter. Dunnes Stores did send its representatives to meet officials of the Department of Finance when differences between Ben Dunne and his siblings created problems for the family trust.
Discussions at the Department of Finance related to the tax system and the likely extent of the family's liability should the trust's problems become terminal.
In this event, Dunnes' potential exposure would amount to £80 million - a figure made public almost by accident in the course of litigation.
MR Quinn was asked if he'd met the representatives from Dunnes Stores: he hadn't. He'd been told of their mission by officials, who had turned down their request; he agreed with the decision.
This was something which came to light accidentally. It emerged later that the company had also made representations to the Department of Finance during Alan Dukes's term in office. With the same result.
But what would the public and political reactions have been it, in either case, the officials had said "Yes, minister" and the minister had acted accordingly - with consequent savings for the family running into tens of millions?
And what of the others, the rich and powerful about whose affairs the public knows nothing?
Mr Dunne may feel that, because of a coincidence of personal, political and legal events, he has been unfairly thrust into the limelight while others have escaped without a mention.
That there are others who've contributed largely to party funds - and, perhaps, to personal rescue schemes - there is no doubt. Mr Dunne says he was told that Mr Haughey's associates planned to approach six would-be donors on the Taoiseach's behalf.
In his beef tribunal report, Mr Justice Hamilton wrote of "normal contributions made to political parties (which) did not in any way affect or relate to the matters being inquired into by the tribunal".
The report didn't say what these "normal contributions" were. But estimates of £110,000 paid by Goodman to FF in a year - £200,000 to all parties - were considered low when they were published here almost a year ago.
People who contribute heavily to party funds don't always have to lean on politicians to look after their interests. It happens automatically.
And there are those among the rich and powerful who may not even contribute to parties but who are capable of exerting a potent influence on public opinion.
Regulation by way of disclosure and spending limits seems an obvious way of preventing the undemocratic use of financial pressure - or the suspicion that such pressure is applied.
But the Electoral Bill, a sensible, modernising measure to make the conduct of politics more open, is opposed by the Progressive Democrats and under threat of change by FE, if and when the centre-right coalition is returned to power.
Now, Tony O'Reilly has joined the ranks of those who oppose state funding. His papers, needless to say, already toe the line, though they - like Dr O'Reilly himself- are not too pushed about consistency.
They favour transparency, up to a point. So does he: yesterday, the Irish Independent reported his views on funding but added that when he was asked if he'd ever contributed to a party here, he replied that it would be "inappropriate for him to comment while a public tribunal was investigating specific issues".
Indeed. Earlier in the week, when the O'Reilly papers were knee deep in sleaze, the Independent commented on the Lowry affair: "Mr Lowry ... must answer the questions raised about him - not those relating to his private life, for that should not be a matter of public concern, but those relating to his conduct in politics and business."
Good stuff, except that for column after column, on page one and inside, the paper emulated its stablemates in lager-lout journalism.