I'm unhappy with a lot about Congress, but I think personal corruption isn't widespread. Sexual misbehavior is probably more prevalent. Anyway, I'm underwhelmed by the lengthy Washington Post coverage today. The Post article documents earmarks for projects that were close to properties members owned in their home areas or to organizations where relatives had jobs. Despite all the digging, the Post identified only 33 members --of 535 voting members of Congress -- who seemed to have sponsored such earmarks.
When you realize that about half the members are millionaires, it's not surprising that they would own property or businesses back home, nor that their relatives would be engaged in economically viable activities.
If such reports do raise your blood pressure, the right answer is more transparency on members' finances and assets, and more details about the beneficiaries of earmarks.