`== Insertion of Disputed tag == This article has more than seriously bad writing. It is an article on a subject which has no business being in an encyclopedia at all. Much of what is passed as information here is actually speculation by myriad newspaper editors.   An encyclopedic article should not just contain ``facts``, let alone unproven allegations. It should also have a context for those facts, and the facts should be checked and balanced.  For instance, it is also a fact that the Ohio 18th Congressional district is steel, coal, union country and considered a trade-union, Democrat seat by the DNC; they rank it very, very high on their target list of seats to win back at any cost. That the current occupant of that seat also holds a house leadership position makes the target all the more compelling. Where are these concepts in the article series?  Adding to the confusion is the extreme reliance on very recent press reports - many of those reports originally generated from speculation on sealed court documents.  Further, statements like ``Bob Ney (R-OH) lied when he said he was ``duped`` by Abramoff and lied again on financial disclosure forms when he said that a nonprofit had paid for the trip.`` show the extraordinary bias and excitment of the article authors. Even the opening sentence shows not even a faint pass at fairness: ``The monetary influence of Jack Abramoff ran deep in Washington, as Jack Abramoff spent millions of dollars to influence and entertain Republican politicians.``   I can't clean this up because I have neither the time nor the detailed info. More importantly, I don't believe anyone but the prosecutor and the defense teams have the detailed info, and none of that will be revealed for quite some time.  As to the press articles as sources, History is already showing how badly the press handled many of the controveries of the past year. The facts of the Katrina response now show that CNN, et al were wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong on way to many of their charges and reports.   I use Wikipedia a lot, and want to see it thive. Articles like this add nothing, mislead the impressionable, and can only harm the reputation of Wiki's in general and Wikipedia specifically.       `