Congress dodging ethics reform

Sunday, March 5, 2006 | 7:17 a.m.

If a member of Congress accepts a lobbyist's offer of a free trip to an exotic vacation spot aboard a private luxury jet, a trip complete with free golf, free gourmet meals and free lodging at a five-star hotel, does merely disclosing his action on a form absolve it of seediness?

Not in our view. But enhanced disclosure of trips financed by lobbyists is the direction Congress now seems to be taking in response to the outrageous scandals revealed by the Jan. 3 conviction of ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike promised tough ethics reforms in the days that Abramoff and his free-spending ways in Washington were Page One news. Democrats called for an end to all congressional gift-giving by lobbyists. Republicans called for a limit of $20 on all gifts. We supported a total ban. The current limit of $49.99 has been susceptible to clever schemes by congressmen to get around it.

Other proposed reforms included either total bans on privately funded travel, or rules requiring members and their staffs to pay full market value for their transportation costs. Former lawmakers and their staffs would have to wait two years, instead of one, before being allowed to lobby Congress, another proposed reform stated. Generally, the proposals were aimed at ensuring a more ethical relationship between members and lobbyists.

But now, as the Washington Post reported Friday, members of Congress "are moving toward producing a bill that would ban few of their activities and would rely mostly on stepped-up disclosure."

We are all for fuller disclosure, and support the listing of all forms on the Internet so that constituents are provided with greater access. But more disclosure should be in conjunction with a wholesale reform effort that bars members of Congress from taking freebies.

It is shameful that Congress appears to be backing off from real reforms, as even increased disclosures may not always tell the full story. If Congress itself cannot police its members, the ultimate watchdogs - voters - should do the job.