Public relations executives, like lawyers, sometimes just sit back and smirk when faced with a client who just wants to tell the truth. They’re well aware that what’s “true” is often not as important as what’s perceived to be true.

Just ask the dozen or so Massachusetts community banks who signed up to receive TARP funds earlier this year. What’s true is that not a single one of the banks needed the money because of any situations with distressed loans. What’s true is that every one saw an opportunity to put those federal dollars to work expanding our local lending institutions, putting more dollars into the hands of local businesses, and improving the economy and employment opportunities in their markets.

Here’s what’s also true: not a single one of them did any of that, because not a single one of them ever actually took a dime of TARP money.

What was perceived to be true was that banks who took TARP funds must be banks that need a bailout. The bank presidents who made the decision to apply for TARP funds got so much negative reaction from customers that each decided they could not afford the reputational risk of putting the government money to work. What was true was not as important as what was perceived to be true.

Last week, the financial world twice got an electro-shock jolt of what was actually true. In the economic meltdown of last Autumn, Treasury Department and Federal Reserve officials called leading bankers to a meeting, and told each of them that they were going to accept TARP funds, whether they wanted to or not. The idea was that if the federal government only let ailing banks take in TARP money, there would be a run on those institutions. If everyone had to take it, no one would look bad.

Both Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase were among the banks that had TARP pushed down their throats. Neither wanted the money. And when the Feds allowed some institutions to pay back the TARP investments a few weeks ago, both did so with alacrity.

Last Tuesday, Goldman reported blowout second quarter profits of $3.44 billion. On Thursday, JPMorgan Chase followed suit, with $2.7 billion earned in its second quarter.

Here’s what’s true: neither institution ever needed a government handout. Among the six largest U.S. retail banks, for instance, JPMorgan is the only one not to lose money in any quarter since the recession began in 2007. Both financial firms took the TARP money because their government told them to do it. And both paid the money back as fast as they were allowed to.

With stellar profit reports at a time when most companies are wallowing in red ink, management of Goldman and JPMorgan must be pretty proud of themselves and their colleagues. They must also think that performance like that should be rewarded.

But in the world of perceived truth, these are institutions who survived the Great Collapse of 2009 by dint of taxpayer bailouts. They’ve earned billions on the government’s dole, and now they’re going to rub it in everyone’s face by paying their employees sizeable bonuses.

On the same day that JPMorgan announced its big earnings, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said the House Financial Services Committee he chairs will be marking up a “say on pay” bill. Such legislation would make it easier for shareholders to have a say in executive compensation of the companies they own.

That’s fine, and it’s a better tack than President Obama’s push to limit executive pay. Let the shareholders have their voices heard. And we’ll bet that when they speak up about Goldman and JPMorgan, they’ll perceive what the truth really is, and support a handsome reward.