In our last thrilling episode, we were counting the days it would take for the Legislature to shed some badly needed sunlight on their outside business dealings.

The goal is to give you a handle on whether state officials are serving you or somebody else who is greasing their palms.

The Michigan state Senate on a 36-2 bipartisan vote passed a watered-down “first step” shot at financial disclosure, but it landed with a thud in the state House, where the Democrats are deeply divided on how to proceed.

As one insider reflected, “It’s a mess.”

In the far corner of the legislative ring are a firebrand host of newcomers who are challenging the House leader — state House Speaker Joe Tate — and his minions in the other corner.

The young turks want more meat on the disclosure bones, including forcing the spouses of state officials to open up their income sources, too.

The speaker, not so much.

When they adjourned last week without either side giving something to get something, the chatter in town turned to an interesting sidebar discussion about all that.

State Sen. Ed McBroom, who has done yeomen duty trying to punch a package across the goal line, noted that, if lawmakers closed the “spouse loophole,” those who wanted to break the law would just find another way to do it.

“We would just end up chasing one loophole after another,” he said.

He’s spot-on.

State officials could hide the outside income by redirecting it to a relative, a close friend, or even, for that matter, another state official, and, until the news media found out about it, they could skirt the new disclosure law.

However, with that convenient copout reason to vote no on a more stringent reporting requirement, why stop there?

You could make the same spurious argument about virtually every piece of proposed legislation plopped in the hopper.

Since drivers routinely run red lights, why have red lights?

If parents didn’t want to send their kids to school, why punish them for that?

And on and on, as you get the idea.

However, lawmakers still pass laws, and people can choose to break them, which is why our prisons have a “no vacancy” sign out front. At least, if somebody disobeys state laws, there are consequences.

“If Michigan voters don”t understand what the financial incentives are of those running for office or those in those seats, then how can they make an informed choice of who they want to represent them? Who is looking out for their interest versus their own personal financial gain?”

The head of Michigan Common Cause, Quinton Turner, makes that point.

The question is, how far do the Democrats want to go to prevent a conflict of interest action by state officials, which violates the very foundation of public trust in the political process?