Since lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy, mail fraud and income tax evasion, Democrats and Republicans have eagerly jumped on the lobbying and ethics reform bandwagon. Amid the flurry of proposals to overhaul Washington's lobbying system, however, one of the primary mechanisms through which lobbyists see their influence pay off--the system of budget earmarks--has been largely ignored. Most of the reform proposals released so far deal directly with lobbying, prohibiting trips arranged by lobbyists, limiting gifts, requiring greater disclosure of lobbyist-lawmaker contacts, and addressing the "revolving door" between public service and lobbying jobs. If enacted wisely, these are worthwhile first steps to cleaning up the culture of corruption in Washington. Unfortunately, they do nothing to address a central aspect of the lobbying scandals--the ability of individual lawmakers to alter major legislation, often with little disclosure, to include changes in regulatory policy or funding for individual, special projects--a process known as earmarking. Earmarks, often referred to as "pork," have been an integral part of the appropriations process for decades. Individual legislators seeking re-election will often develop and promote lists of special projects or district-specific funding they were able to secure to convince voters of their ability, influence, and value. There is a dark side to this process, however, involving earmarks being traded between congressional leaders and other members of Congress in exchange for allegiance on crucial votes, or when they are inserted in the dead of night because powerful lobbyists who contribute money to campaigns request them. Just today, for example, a front-page Washington Post story reports that legislation was dropped at the last minute from one of this year’s budget bills, saving private HMOs $22 billion over the next decade. "That change," according to the story, "was made in mid-December during private negotiations involving House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) and the staffs of those committees as well as the House Energy and Commerce Committee. House and Senate Democrats were excluded from the meeting." The bill was passed by the Senate and will be reconsidered by the House as early as next week. While these last-minute edits rarely make the news, they are often significant, and some lawmakers are now proposing reforms to begin addressing the problems of earmarks and flaws in the congressional budget process. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has recently called for greater accountability and disclosure of earmarks in bills. His proposals would make it easier to strike earmarks from appropriations bill by requiring that they appear in the bill's actual text instead of its accompanying report--usually a less publicized document that even some lawmakers do not see until after a vote on the legislation. McCain's proposal would create more time for reviewing important legislation, a change supported by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) among a number of other senators. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has offered a companion proposal to McCain's in the House. Four House Democrats have also taken up problems with earmarks and other aspects of the budget process, proposing a 14-point reform package. Reps. David Obey (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Tom Allen (D-ME), and David Price (D-NC) have introduced legislation that would amend House ethics rules to prohibit members from advocating for earmarks without disclosing any financial interests they may have in organizations directly benefiting from those earmarks. Obey's reform package, which has the support of 120 Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), would also:

• prevent congressional leaders from securing votes by offering members earmarks on related legislation or policy proposals
• prohibit last-minute additions of earmarks to conference reports without a full public vote by the conference committee
• prohibit reconciliation bills that increase the budget deficit compared to the CBO baseline, and
• create a mandatory minimum time for consideration of all appropriations legislation.

The latest in a growing roster of reform proposals was announced Jan. 23 by Sens. Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), who intend to introduce legislation to create an independent commission to study and recommend a comprehensive set of lobbying reforms. The Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress would be made up of 10 members (five Democrats and five Republicans) who are not currently in Congress. While supportive of current reform efforts, Coleman and Nelson believe the unique perspective of such a commission was needed, with Coleman noting “we also need long-term reforms that can only be achieved from the outside looking in." These packages face an uncertain future, despite their obvious merits, in the current Republican-controlled Congress. Early word from members of the Republican leadership reveals a plan for reform that does not address many of the widely-recognized problems tackled in the above-mentioned proposals. GOP lawmakers seem reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. The budget process, which lacks the public outcry that blatant lobbyist malfeasances received, but which also gives individual lawmakers enormous political clout, will likely end up on the cutting room floor. Even Democratic plans, while more developed and comprehensive, fall short of solving Washington's corruption ills. Challenges notwithstanding, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) has tasked Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-CA) with developing a consensus reform package, including a focus on the process of earmarking. Dreier has not commented on what proposals he is currently considering, saying only that he was reviewing a variety of options. In addition, the House Appropriations Committee is putting together a slightly different proposal for limiting the influence of earmarks rather than outlawing them. Their reforms would standardize a system for lawmakers to request a limited number of earmarks each year. The Appropriations Committee hopes to reduce the number of earmarks requested from the current estimate of 35,000 per year to a number that could be manageably reviewed for merit and then prioritized. The committee is also considering increasing the process' transparency by requiring projects' sponsors be listed in the Congressional Record and that request letters be publicly published. This plan, doing nothing to fundamentally change the system, would only alter the rules slightly. Simply reducing the number of earmarks while still allowing legislators to broker deals for the highest bidder will do little to end Washington's culture of corruption. In fact, by limiting the number of opportunities a legislator has to leverage his or her influence for outside interests, the proposal may actually exacerbate the problem by forcing far greater competition for the smaller number of opportunities for influence. The system may wind up rigged even more in favor of powerful and wealthy interests. Proposals offered thus far fall short of the type of reforms needed to truly stem the flow of money and influence between government, well-funded special interests and high-powered lobbyists. Without more comprehensive changes to the system, including earmark, pay-as-you-go, and other appropriations process reform, lawmakers will continue playing the same game, only with slightly different rules. True lobbying reform means budget process changes to help level the playing field for all interests, particularly the public interest.