Ironically given the anti-GOP slant of the story, that amendment was introduced by.... Harry Reid. Which, of course, NPR conveniently neglected to mention, instead crediting a GOP house member for "shepherding it" (its approval was unanimous, and needed less than 30 seconds debate).

Any time you get stories like these implying that one side and only one side has corruption on it, you need to look real close because it's almost certainly a load of biased baloney.

> "The database itself is almost meaningless," says Holman. He says the only option for those who want to get a comprehensive look at what some 2,900 staffers have filed is to review the cases one by one. "And that's just too big a job for anybody to do."

Oh God.

I'm learning a lot about this I didn't know tonight, thanks.

Ironically, as someone who would like government to employ smarter and more successful people, I'm left wondering how much of their finances we can and should expose. But given how corrupt things seem it feels like we still need to push on this.

Now before I start trying to imagine a way two high power congress members could game the public information requirements between each other, I should go to sleep.

"No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems -- of which getting elected and re-elected are No. 1 and No. 2. Whatever is No. 3 is far behind". - Thomas Sowell