[penultimatename]

These are not similar situations. In your example, they were merely charged and arrested. At that point, nothing has been proven. The case in question has already resulted in a conviction.

It’s a pretty clear cut case of someone misusing governmental funds to further their political aspirations. Another way of phrasing that is corruption. Is a role of the courts not to prevent this? Is allowing proven corrupt individuals to hold office positive for a democratic institution?

[sieve]

Anyone serious about democracy should think hard before they prevent people from standing for elections.

The courts might think they are doing their job, but disqualifying a major political figure from standing for elections based on charges related to 10-20 year old cases gives a very specific message, whether you like it or not.

[penultimatename]

The last instances of impropriety took place seven years before charges were brought. I think that’s in a reasonable time period considering it’s was a conspiracy and had to be investigated.

Government officials should be held to a higher standard, let alone a minimum standard of “don’t steal from the people.” A few years of house arrest and a suspension from politics is a light sentence when one violates that bare minimum standard.