Hiding the source of funding doesn't seem like the worst of issues, although it certainly makes some research look suspect for its partiality. The worst part is avoiding a good journal. For some professions, just publishing in a sham journal can be pretty harmful for one's reputation...hence the reluctance many have for publishing in open access journals.
How is deliberately lying about your incentives and hiding your source of funding under oath testifying to Congress even remotely ok? How are you rationalizing this? What kind of message does it send if we let people lie under oath about what could potentially be so catastrophic? What if they did the same thing about nukes, what's the difference right?
