An August 6 USA Today editorial called the recently passed congressional ethics bill “the most far-reaching since Watergate” but claimed that the bill fell short in “two major areas”: that earmarks would be disclosed "[b]ut they wouldn't necessarily be easy to find and connect to sponsors," and that “Congress failed to add independent panels to judge lawmakers' conduct.” The editorial said further: “Never mind that two high-profile House members went to jail in the past 17 months in scandals that never even piqued the interest of the current House ethics committee.” But the paper failed to identify the “two high-profile House members” as Republicans -- former Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (CA) and Bob Ney (OH). Indeed, the online version of the editorial links to an August 2 Associated Press article on the passage of the bill in the Senate, which reported that Cunningham is “in prison on corruption charges.”

On September 15, 2006, Ney pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and making false statements in connection with the Justice Department investigation into former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison on January 19. On November 28, 2005, Cunningham pleaded guilty to conspiracy to accept bribes from defense contractors. He was sentenced to more than eight years in prison on March 3.

From the August 6 USA Today editorial:

In one way, this is pretty obvious stuff, but the reforms passed last week are nevertheless the most far-reaching since Watergate. They would bar several of the more blatant practices that institutionalize the far-too-cozy relationship between Congress and those who seek its favors. The question is whether this is just a start, or the final act. In two major areas, the changes fall short:

• Congress failed to add independent panels to judge lawmakers' conduct. Never mind that two high-profile House members went to jail in the past 17 months in scandals that never even piqued the interest of the current House ethics committee.
• On earmarks -- those special projects stuck, often secretly, in bills to direct your tax dollars to politically favored recipients -- Congress made some headway, but it's not nearly enough. Under the bill, earmarks would be disclosed on the Internet 48 hours before passage. But they wouldn't necessarily be easy to find and connect to sponsors: Members of Congress put off making earmarks searchable until it is “technically feasible.”

What, don't they Google?