After four hours in the box this week the former Taoiseach has given answers to two key questions being inquired into by the tribunal: He has said the late Mr Des Traynor had his "implicit" authority to ask people for money on his behalf; and that he believes there was nothing wrong with that.
Mr Haughey's examination by counsel for the tribunal, Mr John Coughlan SC, took a surprising twist yesterday when, in the course of his examination concerning the settlement of Mr Haughey's 1970s overdraft with AIB, Mr Coughlan asked in general terms for Mr Haughey's views on politicians receiving personal financial support.
Mr Haughey said he believed there was nothing wrong with a group of friends deciding to get a politician they admired and supported out of personal financial difficulties so as to allow him continue with his work.
There were, he said, people who were willing to make such contributions without wishing for any personal benefit in return.
In order to ensure he would never be influenced by the knowledge that a particular individual had given him financial support, Mr Haughey said it was understood, again implicitly - he and Mr Traynor, he said, never discussed the issue of Mr Traynor soliciting money on his behalf - that Mr Traynor would never tell him who had made contributions.
He rejected a suggestion from Mr Coughlan that there might be a political downside to this, in that a contributor might then have a hold over Mr Haughey, or could damage him if some future government decision was hostile to that person's beliefs. He also said he had no concerns about political opponents being approached by Mr Traynor.
Mr Traynor "would be wise enough to know not to go to someone who was hostile to me", he said.
Asked by Mr Coughlan if he thought it would be legitimate for supporters to help a politician buy a home he couldn't afford from his own resources, Mr Haughey said that would not be right. However, if a politician found himself in financial difficulties, then it was perfectly legitimate for a group of friends to rally round.
The focus of the examination of Mr Haughey during his appearances at the tribunal to date has been the accumulation of massive personal debts by him in the 1970s largely because he couldn't afford to be living in his Abbeville estate while on a TD's salary.
Mr Coughlan said it was because he had become Taoiseach that people had opted in December 1979/January 1980 to give him money so as he could settle his massive debt with AIB. Mr Haughey tried to place the emphasis elsewhere, saying it was because AIB was putting such pressure on him and he was Taoiseach.
With a distinct lack of humility, he said he thought it was permissible for people to support a politician who was "doing a good job, because they are running the country well, because they are engaging in initiatives which are beneficial to everybody, as I think I continually did".
Mr Haughey, in his comments, mirrored the comments of critics of the current system of political funding by business people and companies, saying he saw little difference between getting personal financial assistance and donations to a political party. However, whereas critics of the current system hold that both scenarios involve corruption, Mr Haughey expressed the view that both are legitimate when done by people without "any ulterior motives". Perhaps it depends on whether the person expressing the view is, or is not, a cynic.