'Expected to Sign'

Despite serious concerns, President Bush isn't likely to veto the lobbying bill. That's the right decision.

PRESIDENT Bush considers the lobbying and ethics reform bill that Congress just passed "far from perfect," but he is "expected to sign" the measure, the White House tells us. That is welcome news -- and the right decision, after rumblings that some aides were encouraging a veto and ominous statements about the president's "serious concerns." We agree with Mr. Bush that the measure isn't perfect -- few pieces of legislation are, and probably even fewer that touch on matters so close to lawmakers' interests. But it would represent a significant step toward a cleaner and more transparent system. Lawmakers would be prohibited from accepting meals, travel and entertainment from lobbyists and those who employ them. They would have to report the contributions that lobbyists "bundle" for their campaigns. And there would be far more disclosure of the earmarked pet projects that lawmakers tuck into bills.

Even though the president apparently will sign the bill, it's worth addressing the White House's objections. One is that the measure, in clamping down on lawmakers' flights on corporate jets at bargain rates, could require a president running for reelection to pay the fair-market value of chartering Air Force One, something that would make campaign travel unaffordable for an incumbent president. That's certainly not the intent of the legislation, and the Federal Election Commission has always had separate rules governing Air Force One. The goal should be neither to advantage nor disadvantage an incumbent president, through regulation or a legislative remedy, if necessary.

The White House has a legitimate beef with the provision that extends the revolving door prohibition from one year to two for former senators and executive branch officials but leaves the one-year limit in place for House members and congressional staffers. There's no justification for this double standard, but the president is correct in judging that it is not enough justification for a veto.

The loudest criticism is that provisions governing the use of congressional earmarks aren't stringent enough. But the required disclosure is broader than that passed in the previous, Republican-controlled Senate. It applies not only to language in bills but also to earmarks in conference reports, into which many pet projects are quietly tucked. It contains a broader definition of what constitutes an earmark, including, for example, earmarks that mention particular programs but not specific recipients.

From no requirement to disclose earmarks, this is a dramatic improvement. Could it be better? No doubt. Are earmarks still subject to abuse and manipulation? Certainly. But this measure is an important step forward, and we're glad the president will not try to prevent it from becoming law.