A lot of this data seems like it's only interesting as a means of identity theft and not journalistically interesting. I don't think there's a meaningful transp

A lot of this data seems like it's only interesting as a means of identity theft and not journalistically interesting. I don't think there's a meaningful transparency argument, and I think the downside of filtering for politicians able to deal with identity theft is a problem. (Think US politician Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose immediate prior job was in food service and didn't have enough salary history to rent an apartment in DC. The ability to ruin her personal credit would quite likely ruin her ability to serve her constituents, whereas richer politicians could survive it.) It also filters against politicians with unrelated personal problems beyond their control. Maybe they have an abusive ex-spouse they divorced years ago. Do the details of the divorce need to be public? Maybe they have a family member in prison that they visit (San Francisco mayor London Breed's brother is in prison for murder, for instance). Given the state of our political discourse it will be very easy to attack politicians on the grounds that they have, or previously had, relationships with imperfect people, and those usually don't mean they'll use their office to help those people, or that their character is actually doubtful. And again it seems like it would unduly hurt those who come from backgrounds that aren't already the powerful class/group/ethnicity/whatever in the country.