What's the opposite of filthy lucre?

Laundered money?

In the Ithaca Journal: yesterday, the state Court of Appeals

threw out a lawsuit that sought to upend the way New York funds private economic-development projects.
In a 5-to-2 ruling, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the state's right to transfer funds to "public-benefit corporations." Those entities then take the money and offer it to private companies in the form of grants, loans and tax incentives for job-creating projects.
The state's main economic-development branch is the Empire State Development Corp., which is technically independent of the government and therefore isn't bound by a constitutional ban on giving state money to private entities, the court found.
Although some "may question the wisdom of policy choices," the court found "no constitutional infirmity to the challenged appropriations," according to the majority opinion, written by Associate Justice Theodore Jones.
The group bringing the suit said that when grants are made by public-benefit corporations, they violate "Article VII, Section 8 of the state constitution, which prohibits state money from being 'given or loaned to or in aid of any private corporation or association'".
The Buffalo-based attorney representing the plaintiffs told the Court of Appeals last month that "funneling grants or loans through public corporations 'amounts to a money-laundering scheme'".
At CrainsNewYork: Rochester native and Associate Justice
Eugene Pigott Jr. said the state constitution expressly forbids giving or loaning state money to any private corporation, association or undertaking, even when a public-benefit corporation is used as an intermediary. The provision has specific exceptions for educational and mental health funds.
"Unconstitutional acts do not become constitutional by virtue of repetition, custom or passage of time," Judge Pigott wrote. He noted that New York voters in 1967 rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed the state to distribute funds to private businesses for economic development in the same way the Economic State Development Corp. is doing it now.
In a second dissent, Judge Robert Smith wrote that the Legislature's "devotion to this self-destructive practice is no small matter," including $140 million to support a joint venture in wafer packaging that includes IBM, $300 million to help a consortium of semiconductor manufacturers expand research and development and $650 million to subsidize Global Foundries' semiconductor manufacturing. Based on projections of new and retained jobs, the state costs range from $60,000 to $400,000 per job, he wrote.
"I have defended before, and will no doubt defend again, the right of elected legislators to commit folly if they choose," Judge Smith wrote. "But when our Legislature commits the precise folly that a provision of our Constitution was written to prevent, and this court responds by judicially repealing the constitutional provision, I think I am entitled to be annoyed."
And lastly—I think Judge Smith gets it— 
"I seem to remember a time when IBM could make money by selling its products for more than it cost to produce them," Smith wrote. "I would have thought semiconductor manufacturers could do the same. If they cannot, a bail-out for their shareholders is not a prudent use of more than a billion dollars in taxpayer funds."
Taxing and spending without representation, behind what amounts to closed doors, without any oversight.  What could possibly go wrong?