After much frustration in trying to send the ethics and lobbying reform legislation to conference committee, RollCall ($$) reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have decided to abandon the normal conference committee process and will use a parliamentary tactic rarely used to push the legislation. According to the article, the plan would be that the House and Senate votes on identical language without amendments attached to circumvent the conference process. Once a deal is reached Democrats will bring a new version of the bill back to the House floor using a rule to limit amendments. Pelosi could then pass the measure somewhat quickly and send the new version to the Senate. Reid would then have to block any effort to change the bill. The decision was reached as Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) continues to refuse to let the bill move to conference without a promise from Reid that new earmark reform rules will be included. Given the high profile of the ethics issue, supporters would gamble that any filibuster could be overcome. But according to Republican aides, DeMint and other conservatives who have been pushing ethics and earmark reforms in the Senate will likely be in no mood to simply accept a new bill, particularly if they feel any of the provisions have been changed or watered down. Meanwhile, BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that some who are working on easing disagreements between the two versions might be considering dropping the bundling provision. Both the House and Senate version of the reform bill contain provisions to require lobbyists to include in reports filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act the campaign money that they collect or arrange to have delivered to lawmakers and other candidates. A new proposal now reportedly being considered would require only candidates and other political committees, but not lobbyists, to report information on bundled contributions to the Federal Election Commission. . . . But, reformers suspect that others have privately supported DeMint's stance because of objections to provisions in the underlying lobbying legislation, such as the requirement to disclose bundling.