This test is based on what I'm going to call the “reasonable persons” test. It's up to an individual who has awareness of the facts to make a determination, in place of the individual who would otherwise be making the decision. When I was in law school, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek essay about Sam the reasonable man and Samantha the reasonable woman, who would be officers of the court and stand in the place of the individual who was offered the opportunity to give the reasonable person test. The issue with an appearance of a conflict of interest is that you never necessarily know all the variables that are going on behind the scenes when a decision is being made.
We've heard previously that there's the potential for someone to benefit because their trust isn't really that blind, and nobody ever trades any assets. That's not the point. The point is that when you are faced with a decision as a public office holder, there should not be an overt, direct tension in front of you that would cause stress between your official duties and your personal interests or those of somebody you know, somebody who's related to you or someone who would improperly benefit from that.
I think it's very difficult to tell public office holders that they will not be able to make a decision because of something that's held outside of their legal control. Legal control is a very important point here, because if you are free to make your decision on behalf of the country or a sector of the economy, you can stand on that decision and say, “Here are the reasons that I made it, and I'm going to disclose that on the public record.” Then you are not going to know whether or not that is going to benefit you.
There's been an allegation from previous witnesses, an allusion, that, yes, they actually do know, but it's a very bright line. Once you are a public office holder and your materials are in a blind trust, you have crossed that line and you are no longer making a decision that can legally benefit you.