The New Reformers

Back in 1983, I wrote a story about senators who were making lots of speeches to lobbying groups and pocketing the cash.

Bob Dole was the leader on the Republican side, earning $134,000 (probably about 300K in today's dollars) for holding forth before banking, manufacturing, oil and health care groups that needed to curry favor with the Finance Committee, which he chaired. (Dole gave 51K to charity.) On the Democratic side, Fritz Hollings pulled in $92,000.

All perfectly legal, without the muss and bother of having to launder a golfing trip through some obscure charity. Fifteen senators cleared $50,000 in lecture fees that year. But the annual stories became embarrassing to Congress, which eventually killed the practice.

Now there's a great rush among lawmakers who have been living high on the special-interest hog to carry the banner of "reform." A year ago, Denny Hastert was defending a rule to allow indicted members (especially with the initials T.D.) to keep their House leadership jobs, the speaker now wants to crack down on questionable ethical practices. Not long ago, Rick Santorum was helping run the K Street Project, a mechanism for the GOP leadership to pressure trade associations to hire Republicans. Now he's the point man on reform.

Most Democrats weren't exactly storming the gates to change the rules either until lobbyist Jack Abramoff became an albatross they thought they could hang around the GOP's neck.

I think the press, with a few exceptions, had been snoozing about this issue until the Abramoff tale heated up. Only recently do we read that the number of lobbyists in Washington has doubled in the past few years, to 35,000. Only recently do we read that half the former members of Congress are lobbyists.

Lobbyists for all kinds of companies and causes are entitled to make their case, but the current system practically invites favor-trading and unspoken quid pro quos. Why are private interests allowed to pay for congressional travel, anyway? If a matter is important enough to warrant a lawmaker's travel, why shouldn't the taxpayers pick up the tab?

In a larger sense, is any set of rules capable of plugging this particular dike? Do you outlaw lobbying by spouses and kids? Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt's wife and son are in the biz, with his wife representing the parent company of Philip Morris, a big Blunt donor.

Case in point: The Post revealing that the Hastert plan would still allow interest groups to buy meals and trips for lawmakers as long as they hand the politician a contribution at the same time. Then it's okay!

"With a stinging attack on Republican ethics," says the New York Times, "Congressional Democrats Wednesday proposed a lobbying overhaul they said far exceeds new Republican proposals in limiting the influence of monied special interests on Capitol Hill. . . .

"The high profile Democrats gave to unveiling their ethics plan made clear that the party intends to make its portrayal of Republican corruption a central theme in the coming mid-term elections and showed that Democrats do not intend to easily strike a deal with anxious Republicans on an ethics overhaul.

"Republicans mounted a fierce counteroffensive, highlighting the ties Democrats have to lobbyists, pointing out past resistance to ethics changes, circulating Library of Congress regulations that say the facility should not to be used for political events and accusing Mr. Reid of using his Senate office to prepare political documents."