Ethics reform packages leave gaping loopholes

Beware investing too much hope in congressional plans to restrict the ways money may be used to buy influence

Friday, January 20, 2006

In trying to make sense out of the corrupt-lobbying scandal that's been rocking the nation's capital, don't just follow the money.

Follow the airplanes.

If Republicans and Democrats were sincere about cleaning up congressional ethics, they would prohibit the most powerful members of Congress from accepting offers of princely trips by private jet. These are highly prized perks, routinely provided by moneyed interests seeking favors in Washington, D.C. Yet a ban on such pampering is nowhere to be found in the reform proposals laid out this week by House and Senate leaders from both political parties.

The two packages suggest new laws targeting some of the worst abuses in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. But both proposals also leave open a generous set of loopholes for those seeking to influence lawmakers with money and the things money can buy. The private jet transportation -- worth tens of thousands of dollars but requiring reimbursement of no more than the cost of a commercial airline ticket -- is just one example of these seductive treats.

This is no knock on what Republicans and Democrats now propose: limiting or eliminating expensive "fact-finding" junkets and gifts paid for by lobbyists. The way we look at it, a member of Congress accepting a $20,000 trip to a luxury golf resort in Scotland is no less unethical than one accepting $20,000 from a lobbyist to build a swimming pool in the backyard. Tougher new rules banning such trips, which figured prominently in the Abramoff bribery allegations, are welcome and long overdue.

But let's not fool ourselves. Both chambers of Congress are notoriously lax in enforcing ethics rules already in place, especially those requiring disclosure statements. And don't underestimate the endless creative ways that lobbyists and other favor-seekers will still be able to use money to buy political influence.

They'll still be able to bankroll glitzy parties and trips for members of Congress by defining the events as fundraising.

They'll still be able to finance lavish entertainment and expensive parties at political conventions.

They'll still be able to funnel generous donations to campaign war chests and to foundations controlled by members of Congress.

And, yes, they'll still be able to use executive jets to fly congressional heavyweights just about anywhere they might like to go.

If any further evidence is needed to prove Congress has no genuine interest in cleaning house, it lies in the deafening silence about earmarks in both parties' reform packages. Earmarks are perhaps the No. 1 device used by members of Congress to grant favors. It's done by inserting pet projects into spending bills, usually at the last minute and without scrutiny.

A ban on earmarks would cut off this popular avenue for payback in the influence-peddling game. A leading Republican critic of this time-honored practice, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., told The Washington Post such a ban is essential to any credible reform effort.

The absence of any mention of an earmarking ban says a lot -- none of it particularly optimistic -- about the ethics proposals unveiled this week by the two political parties.