The Capitol's Culture of Capital

The House Republican plan also apparently has yet to embrace the curtailment of one of the true outrages of the lobbying world: lawmakers' use of corporate jets. McCain would force members of Congress to pay the charter rate for use of those planes, which would effectively end the practice. But the House bill, as far as we know, would continue charging lawmakers only the cost of a first-class ticket for the extravagant gift, a price that's a tiny fraction of the actual cost of a nonstop corporate flight.

Instead, lawmakers are vilifying lobbyists, which is a little like picking on trial lawyers (at least in a PR sense). They're completely avoiding the real problem: money, money, money.

"These proposals don't go to the heart of the matter," complained Thomas J. Downey, a former Democratic House member from New York and longtime head of a lobbying firm. "To leave the public with the belief that members are all good and lobbyists are all bad begs the essential question of what is wrong with the system. What's wrong is the money flow."

Analysts see two significant ways to squeeze Washington's growing addiction to money. The first is instant and total disclosure via the Internet of all funds expended to affect legislation, regulation or elections. On the theory that sunlight is the best disinfectant, this option would proscribe nothing, report everything, and let the voters decide what's acceptable and what's not.

The second option, pressed by pro-government activists who doubt that "everything" will ever be reported, would limit how funds can be spent or collected. This group would radically reduce or even ban lobbyists and lobby groups from raising or giving funds to Washington-related endeavors, especially elections. Some would also cap what candidates can spend. Their ultimate goal is to replace privately funded elections with taxpayer dollars.

A hybrid notion would make campaign donations anonymous. Assuming that contributions would somehow stay anonymous, the money would not provide anyone or any interest any additional clout. Then again, it's hard to know how multimillion-dollar gifts to independent groups, such as 527s, could ever be shielded in this way.

Each of these ideas has deficiencies -- constitutional, practical and otherwise -- but reform advocates say some combination of them is needed.

"If Congress doesn't reform fundraising, lobbying reform will be meaningless," said James J. Blanchard, a former Democratic congressman from Michigan and now a sometime lobbyist. When he served in the House in the 1970s and 1980s, he devoted 10 percent of his time to raising money. Now his successors use up 50 percent, and the people they shake down for the dough most often are -- you guessed it -- lobbyists.

"It's a total obsession and a tragedy," Blanchard said. Unless that's changed somehow, he added, so-called reform is "just tinkering at the margins."

Jeffrey H. Birnbaum writes about the intersection of government and business every other Monday. His e-mail address iskstreetconfidential@washpost.com. He will be online to discuss proposed lobbying law changes noon today athttp://www.washingtonpost.com/business.