I would recommend maintaining the standard of being concerned about perceived conflicts of interest as well, not just real conflicts of interest.
Ultimately, in my mind, one of the purposes of this act is about ensuring public confidence in ethical government and ensuring public confidence in the fair exercise of public power. If the standard is only a real conflict of interest, I don't think that will create a lot of public confidence in the exercise of public power. If the explanation was, “Oh, well, they may have tried to improperly influence government decision-making, but they had no chance of doing that for this, this, and this reason, so they're not in a conflict of interest.”
You need to have that prophylactic rule of perceived conflict of interest or apparent conflict of interest in order to protect the integrity of public confidence in government. You have to try to come up with fair and clear standards for public office holders so that they're aware of that. As you've said, the reputation and the integrity of public office holders is on the line. When there is a complaint, an investigation, or even an allegation, that's a very onerous and a very serious thing.