It still veers far from "facts" by stretching to paint the accused in a sympathetic light. If you want to talk about what is ethical journalism and not making a presupposition of guilt then the headline shouldn't be making excuses for people accused of corrupt behaviour before all the facts are on the table.

It's still a terrible headline running reputation defense for the accused that does not match what is contained in the article. If they were being "ethical journalists" and sticking to the facts the headline would read along the lines of "lawmakers accused of using influence to obtain rare products before the public can access." That's a fact-based recap of what is happening, unlike what was written which reads as "maybe this was wrong but can you blame them when they are really big fans?"