Dauphin County Judge Richard Lewis, who is presiding over the trial of the former No. 2-ranking state House Democrat Mike Veon of Beaver County, would have been wrong to impose time limits on the prosecution in what already is a four-week-old trial.

All of the allegations against Veon should be aired fully in the courtroom — as well as all evidence in his defense — and setting arbitrary time limits would work against that. It would be unconscionable for such a significant case to be exposed to such a time-limit decision.

Pennsylvania residents should be allowed to hear about all of the alleged illegal goings-on by people they elected — as well as about any alleged illegal actions carried out by people hired by elected leaders, at the leaders' behest.

The fears expressed Tuesday that the judge might cut the length of the trial raised the possibility that Pennsylvanians might be denied access to information to which they are entitled. Such a decision also might prevent revelations that, if they were aired, might give investigators new leads to pursue in the probe that has been dubbed Bonusgate.

The Bonusgate investigation must not be limited in any way — by anyone. Putting a time limit on Veon trial testimony would risk short-circuiting potential new leads.

The people who might be sweating over their coming testimony at the trial now in progress should not be given a reprieve from that apprehension.

Senior Deputy Attorney General E. Marc Costanzo was right in his observation that, in many respects, the Veon case is unprecedented.

While the investigation involving former state Sen. Vincent Fumo of Philadelphia was primarily about Fumo's illegal activities benefiting mostly himself, Bonusgate is of much broader scope involving use of taxpayers' money to influence the outcome of elections — and then using more taxpayer funds for hefty bonuses to award those who engaged in illegal activity promoted, directly or indirectly, by some elected bosses.

The case against Veon is that he was one of the elected leaders responsible for requiring employees, while on state-paid time, to engage in campaign work, which is illegal.

"We have no problem with time limits when it comes to the orderly prosecution of the case," Costanzo said. But he was right in emphasizing that prosecutors were vehemently opposed to an arbitrary end date for their case or any restriction on the number of witnesses.

Three former Veon aides also are on trial with the ex-lawmaker.

The defendants are entitled to put on their own case, and they must be allowed to call any witnesses they have subpoenaed, including current and former state representatives and senators.

Prosecutors have said they have about a dozen more witnesses remaining, plus some investigators. The prosecutors indicated that they were hopeful of wrapping up their part of the trial by March 5, with the defense phase of the trial beginning immediately thereafter.

As for the defense, the attorney for one of Veon's co-defendants was right in stressing that his client and the other defendants have to be able to defend themselves against the dozens of felony counts of theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest lodged against them.

"This is a big case; there's no getting away from it," said the attorney, Bill Fetterhoff.

To anyone concerned about the direction of state government over the past decade or so, Fetterhoff's observation is a great understatement.

It's also a basis for great dismay that state government has sunk to such a low depth.

Had the judge proceeded with his initial plan to try to shorten the length of the trial, the state could have been perceived as having sunk to an even lower depth.

Bonusgate must be unraveled, no matter how long it takes and no matter how many elected and appointed officials are taken down in the process — and no matter how much the trial costs.

Harrisburg's corruption must be brought to an end.

That must be the judge's attitude, regardless of how many months the trial consumes.