A very revealing article with oodles of quotes and lists.

This article is too short and lacking in detail. It could be an important story, but as written it is not. It is closer to a commentary than a factual article.

A bit repetitive on a couple points. Appropriately addresses the hypocrisy. Demonizing only earmarks is a bit over simplifying legislative problems, however.

This article relies largely on other media sources for its information and focuses on only one Republican senator. No mention of Republican record number of earmarks and money spent on them under six years of Republican rule.

It is important to point out that Republicans are taking earmarks even while they criticize the Democrats for them, but much better would be a story that presents specific information on the history of earmarks, dating back at least 2 decades. In particular, how have earmarks been introduced over that time period? What percent of the appropriations bill have earmarks represented across that time period? What changes in how earmarks are introduced, voted on, and their source identified [or not] over that time period? How has the nature of earmarks changed [e.g. road to a shopping mall built by a big donor to a specific congressman vs. equipment for a city's planetarium].