How about investigating:
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
Sen. Roland Burris (D-Illinois)
Representatives
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-New York)
Rep. Bob Filner (D-California)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-California)
Rep. William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) - Indicted
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-West Virginia)
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pennsylvania)
David Obey, Democratic representative of Wisconsin's 7th district. He is the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Obey has 99 Ear mark requests.
Daniel Inouye (D) from Hawaii. Chairman Inouye more than doubles the number of requests from Obey at 203 earmark requests. And the dollar amount? $653 million.
Or how about how the Dems are screwing with the ethics bill... "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007'', and as expected, the Democratic leadership has worked some funny business to dilute some of the Act's key provisions. key changes include:
The old version (passed by the Senate) required conference / committee reports to list all earmarks and required the chairman of the relevant committee to distribute the earmark list. But the new version of the bill allows the Majority Leader (as opposed to the Senate parliamentarian, a more objective judge) to determine whether or not a conference report complies with the disclosure requirements.
The new version removes the requirement for earmark lists posted online to be in searchable format.
The new version removes the provision that prevented any bill from being considered at all prior to the disclosure of earmarks; now the text only prohibits a formal motion to proceed, which leaves open a procedural loophole that would allow bills to slip through without disclosure.
The old version prohibited earmarks which benefit a Member, their staff, or their family/their staff's family. The new version waters that down and only prohibits earmarks that would "only" affect those parties --- which means so long as you can make a case that your shiny new project affects at least one person other than you positively, you're all set.
You want to investigate people how about Murtha?
Rep. Murtha chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Rep. Murtha's ethics issues and violations stem from (1) his ties to the PMA Group, a now defunct lobbying firm under federal investigation; (2) his ties to Kuchera Industries, a defense contractor under federal investigation; (3) his ties to defense executives and former military personnel convicted of skimming money from government contracts; (4) actions he may have taken to benefit his brother's lobbying clients; and (5) his chief of staff's threats to a political opponent. Rep. Murtha was included in CREW's 2006, 2007, and 2008 reports on congressional corruption.
So instead of going after Blackwater - who had guys in harms way helping out in Iraq - how about going after the REAL bad guys like Terriorist and Murtha?
