I agree that policy makers bear primary culpability; but that doesn't absolve you morally for your individual choices. This is not "free money", in the sense of "I found a $100 bill on the street"; it comes from the sweat of taxpayers, both present and future. (In self-interested terms, it also doesn't absolve a company from harm to their brand and reputation, if/when it becomes public that they accepted a bailout they didn't need.)

I'm curious. If a person qualifies for the stimulus check but has enough in savings to get through the next few months, do you believe they should refuse because it comes from the sweat of taxpayers as well?

I've seen at least one person in my social network, whose employment hasn't been impacted, offer to give their check to someone who is furloughed or laid-off.

It's tough to say, since there's always the risk of more layoffs; and there's an argument that the payments are stimulus as well as relief, and so it's perfectly legitimate to accept, so long as one spends it. But as a matter of conscience/citizenship, if one is economically stable, it's at least worth considering giving it to someone in greater need. Everyone's circumstance is different, and a lot of people were economically struggling before the virus, so I think we each answer that question for ourselves.

That said, I think the corporate bailouts are in a different category than individual payments. The $1200 relief check system is hardly perfect, but it's at least transparent and fair: every citizen of the same income bracket gets the same flat payment. But we all know there's a lot of wheeling and dealing and favors and promises taking place with the bailout money, and there's no objective algorithm for deciding who gets paid, or how much. If a travel agency gets $50m when they really could've stayed afloat for $25m, how exactly would anyone arrive at that definitive number, including the travel agency themselves? But if a company takes a bailout when they don't truly need it at all, I think it's fair for taxpayers to cry foul.

There isn't a guarantee that the economic impact will be over after the next few months. But someone who is in really good shape but still eligible for the money could donate all or part of it to charity.

So that raises a question, one I ask because I honestly don’t know the answer: have the policy makers who authorized the release of these monies even made a supplemental mechanism for returning it outside of the established parameters for funds distributed as an explicit loan?

Taking your argument of the morality of individual choices at face value: how is one supposed to put that money back? Are they obligated to report this action as they would others? What’s the enforcement mechanism like?

I get your point but it opens up a lot of questions IMO that maybe adds some sediment to the purely moral water being poured out