Call for Lobbying Changes Is A Fading Cry, Lawmakers Say

In fact, Blunt's chief opponent for majority leader, Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), gained a clear advantage in the race by publicly calling Hastert's travel ban "childish" and by privately assuring colleagues that he would weaken the bill if he were elected. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), the candidate for majority leader who championed the most dramatic changes, finished a distant third.

During a tense, hours-long, members-only meeting two weeks after Hastert's news conference, House Republicans complained bitterly about almost every aspect of the proposed measure, participants said. The protests prompted Shadegg to chide his colleagues for overreacting at first and then plotting to do nothing in the end.

The Senate's ethics legislation followed a similar path. Soon after Hastert's announcement, Senate Democrats and Republicans separately proclaimed their bold intentions at major media events. To prove their resolve, the GOP spotlighted the involvement of campaign finance reformer Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). The Democratic Party enlisted high-profile help from one of its rising stars, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I was eager to participate; I was excited about it," Obama recalled. "The timing was good not just for the party but for the country."

But soon after, senators with the most seniority raised the largest number of objections to limits on meals or travel. In private meetings, participants said, veteran Republicans and Democrats said they were offended that anyone would think they could be bought for mere hospitality. They also objected to altering Senate rules when the most egregious behavior had occurred in the House, including the then-recent bribery conviction of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.).

Powerful lobby groups also campaigned to protect their prerogatives. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbied vigorously against the travel ban, asserting how useful it is for lawmakers to get out of Washington to see the impact of their policies.

"We had meetings and meetings and meetings, and we were going to move forward," McCain recalled. "But a sense of urgency disappeared as we went through the committee process. I stopped having any meaningful input."

A steady stream of proposals favored by McCain and Obama was rejected by Senate panels. One would have established an independent office of public integrity to oversee ethics enforcement. Another would have forced lawmakers to pay charter fares for charter flights, rather than first-class ticket prices.

Government watchdog groups had assumed that members of Congress would not risk the public's ire by opposing such basic changes. But they were wrong; voters rarely complained, lawmakers said.

"The reason why it didn't happen was that members didn't feel a sufficient amount of pressure to change the way they do business," McCain said in reference to large-scale reform. "There's a belief among my colleagues that our constituents are not concerned."

The lack of powerful public backing for the legislation has prompted recriminations. "The advocates of reform utterly failed to mobilize public support," Collins observed.

Joan Claybrook, president of the liberal organization Public Citizen, said her group and others instigated thousands of e-mails to Congress and called it "totally ridiculous" that lawmakers place blame on her coalition for not producing more protests.

Nevertheless, the legislation remains in limbo and, so far at least, a shadow of its initial expectations. Several of the bill's earliest advocates, such as McCain and Obama, voted against it as a waste of congressional time. "We missed an opportunity," Obama said.

Even defenders of the legislation call it only a minor improvement over current law. David Dreier (R-Calif.), one of the architects of the House-passed bill, said he would like to "pursue more reform" as soon as the measure passes.