Congress won't get tough on ethics

By ELMER SMITH
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
Apparently the U.S. Senate has decided that incest is family business.
If our elected representatives on Capitol Hill and their kissin' cousins along lobbyist row on K Street have become a little too close for our comfort, it's nothing a few rules changes won't solve.
The rest of us may have read too much into the convictions of congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham and lobbyists Jack Abramoff and Adam Kidan for influence peddling, legislative meddling and the creative use of each other.
Forgive us for thinking something is seriously wrong with the recent disclosures about how lobbyists and lawmakers get to know each other, in the biblical sense, and then turn out legislation crafted to the specifications of the lobbyists' clients.
With Abramoff threatening to name names and provide details, you'd think they'd want to adopt some tough anti-corruption measures so they at least look concerned just before the feds back the truck up and start hauling lawmakers away.
They see it differently. The weak and watered-down limits on lobbying the U.S. Senate passed proudly and overwhelmingly last week are their way of telling us that it's lobbyists and not lawmakers who bear watching.
How else do you explain their utter rejection of a bipartisan call to create an independent investigative arm? Nor could they see the need for a ban on privately funded travel, including the use of corporate jets provided by lobbyists.
As it stands now, the distinguished gentleman from pickyour-state can take his family to Katmandu on a private jet owned by a lobbyist who is pushing legislation that the distinguished gentlemen may be called on to vote for when he gets back.
With the, ahh, limits proposed by the Senate, they could still go but they'd have to get approval from the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. They would also have to say who went with them.
They did approve a prohibition against lawmakers accepting lavish meals and expensive gifts from lobbyists. But they rejected a ban against gifts and meals from the clients of lobbyists.
Huh?
'Markup' sessions
They never got close to dealing with the parts that make the rest of us nervous. Such as the practice of allowing certain lobbyists access to the "markup" sessions where bills are put together, or the fact that dozens of lobbyists are former lawmakers and senior staffers of lawmakers who get their clients past the gatekeepers who block schlubs like you and me.
They apparently saw nothing wrong with the fact that lobbyists who work to influence their votes also funnel campaign funds to them through political action committes the lobbyists help run.
Where the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers gets really sticky is in the time-worn practice of "earmarking" legislation. Way it works is that lawmakers routinely slip essentially private bills into larger pieces of legislation. That way, they get to pass their little boutique bills without debate.
The house is working on a version that promises to be a little bit tougher. Theirs includes a temporary ban on privately funded travel and it would require disclosure of gifts and meals from lobbyists.
And there's the rub. The two bills must be reconciled, which could bog down the process until after the midterm elections, as fate would have it.
Between them, we'd be lucky if they even got close to meaningful reform. But, as the old saying goes, it's close enough for government work.
Not close enough for real reformers like Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, who cast two of the eight "no" votes.
But more than enough to please Sen. Rick Santorum.
"Congress stepped up in a big way," he said. "This is a much tougher bill than anyone would have anticipated when we started this process."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Elmer Smith is associate editor of the opinion pages at the Philadelphia Daily News. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.