The Capitol's Culture of Capital

The most severe-sounding proposals would ban or sharply restrict travel and gifts, such as meals, given to lawmakers by outsiders. These provisions have moved to the forefront of the effort because Abramoff flew lawmakers to golf outings in places such as Scotland and feted them free-of-charge at his since-closed restaurant Signatures (so named because it was near the National Archives where the Declaration of Independence is housed).

But both proposals are minor in the scheme of things. According to PoliticalMoneyLine.com, Congress's 535 members on average went on only two privately paid trips last year, the same average as in 2004.

What's more, the peak annual cost of those travels, in 2003, reached only $3.9 million, a pittance compared with almost anything the government does. The annual federal budget is $2.5 trillion .

As for the meals ban, that, too, would represent a minuscule infringement compared with lobbyists' many other, much more potent methods of persuasion.

Lobbyists and their clients annually pour billions of dollars into sophisticated grass-roots lobbying campaigns, lobbying-related foundations and think tanks, and lawmakers' reelection coffers. That's where the real power is applied. But not a single senior lawmaker is suggesting cutting back any of those advantages.

Besides, the current gift rule is supposed to deprive lawmakers of lavish dinners. Anything more than $49.99 per sitting or a cumulative $99.99 per calendar year is prohibited. The problem is that the rule is routinely violated because no one enforces it. Short of creating a restaurant police, it's hard to see how an outright ban or a lower limit would change anything.

Except maybe for the worse. As I've written before, the bans wouldn't be airtight. In practice, lobbyists -- or anyone else from outside Congress -- could still pay for lawmakers' travel and meals. All they'd have to do is make those gifts part of fundraising events and, voila! , the transaction would be just fine.

As hard as it may be to believe, lawmakers would be allowed to accept a dinner or a trip only if the sponsors also handed over checks for their reelection campaigns, which would underwrite the fun. That specter, of course, would only add to the horrible reputation that the Abramoff cash-for-favors disgrace has already given them and would run counter to everything they say they want to accomplish.

Which isn't to say that nothing in the bills is worthwhile. On the contrary, the Abramoff affair is being used as an excuse to beef up what has long been an anemic disclosure regimen for lobbyists.

Abramoff obviously disregarded reams of existing disclosure requirements, so it's doubtful that additional regulations would make any difference to criminals like him. Nonetheless, the public (and reporters like me) would benefit mightily if Congress approved a vast expansion of lobbyists' public reports. Democracy functions better the more completely voters are informed about their government.

We should all welcome more detailed and more frequent reports online that tie all of lobbyists' financial giving to their lobbying activities. Thank you, Mr. Abramoff, if that happens.

In addition, a few proposals in the mix would make a major dent in business as usual. But in typical fashion, not all of them will make it through. One notable-but-troubled initiative from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) would force lobbyists for the first time to disclose their public relations and grass-roots activities, which is the largest type of lobbying. Pressure is mounting inside and outside Congress to reject the provision, thus raising the possibility that the fastest-growing part of the influence industry will remain a dark secret.