What part of 'Conflict of Interest' don't you understand?

Note the 'confused' Congressional Republicans cited in the reporting.

Via Roll Call (full text at this Senator Coburn's web site):

GOP: Conflict Rules Unclear
By Susan Davis,
Roll Call Staff

A group of House GOP ranking members is asking for clarification of the chamber’s new rules requiring lawmakers who request earmarks to certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interest in the requests.

The recently enacted earmark reforms are part of Democrats’ efforts to regulate a process that played a role in a series of prominent corruption cases, most notably that of jailed ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.). The rules have been applauded by outside watchdog groups and Democratic leaders who promised to cut down on the number of earmark requests that ballooned under 12 years of Republican control.

But a cadre of senior Republicans have recently raised concerns with the ethics committee that the rule — which calls for Members making earmark requests to send a letter to the committee of jurisdiction vowing that they have no personal monetary stake in the issue — is vaguely written, asking the committee to clarify what does, and does not, constitute a “financial interest.”

“The addition of the requirements for disclosure contained in [House Rules] significantly raise the stakes for compliance with the rule,” they wrote.

The letter, dated Feb. 28, was signed by GOP ranking members David Dreier (Calif.) on Rules, Spencer Bachus (Ala.) on Financial Services, Tom Davis (Va.) on Oversight and Government Reform, Ralph Hall (Texas) on Science and Technology, Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) on Intelligence, Howard McKeon (Calif.) on Education and Labor, John Mica (Fla.) on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Lamar Smith (Texas) on Judiciary...