On Jan. 17, the Republican congressional leadership unveiled its ideas for addressing the growing culture of corruption in Washington. The following day the Democrats provided a set of specific principles to address the same issues. The two efforts overlap in key areas, but a closer look reveals the Democrats' principles to be far more comprehensive.

The Republican plan has yet to take shape. In fact, at their press conference, Republican leaders in the House and Senate appeared not to have reached full agreement on all the ideas that were advanced. Since what ultimately will be proposed remains unclear, a judgment on the Republican plan must be withheld for now.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have consulted with a number of experts in developing their principles. Their plan appears well thought-out, and the eight reforms they propose were appropriately documented. The principles are supported by both House and Senate Democratic leaders, an important accomplishment. Now we will wait to see the details of their legislative plan to assess how fully these principles are realized.

In our view, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats go far enough in addressing the bipartisan culture of corruption. The root problem as we see it is not the practice of lobbying, which is a vital First Amendment right; rather the problem exists in the pervasive and corrupting influence of money on the political process. The ultimate objective should be to ensure an open and level playing field in accessing elected leaders.

Both the Democrats and Republicans support expanding lobby disclosure, but the Democrats offer meaningful enforcement with criminal penalties for noncompliance. We support the principle of expanded lobby disclosure, but believe in this instance that the devil is, as they say, in the details. Reporting on lobbying should occur more frequently and should include the cost of grassroots lobbying communications. Disclosure requirements should help expose big money lobby efforts cloaked in misleading coalition names. The current policy that allows charities to use IRS definitions of lobbying when filing lobbying disclosure reports should be respected, however, and new policies should not create an added reporting burden for charities.

Both the Democrats and Republicans would ban travel paid for by lobbyists, but whether the Republicans are in agreement on this point is questionable. Neither plan appears to solve the problem of lobbyist-sponsored travel "subsidies," such as those that allow lawmakers to pay commercial rates instead of market rates for private jets. While details of either plan are not yet available, the Democrats plan, it appears, would do more to limit influence-peddling through travel perks, by prohibiting all privately funded travel, except travel sponsored by charities. We support this exemption in recognition of the fact that, through site visits among other outings, charities provide important nonpartisan educational opportunities to our lawmakers. Nonetheless, such travel must be subject to disclosure rules to ensure that charities are not used as conduits for sponsoring travel by lobbyist and others.

Both the Democrats and Republicans propose restrictions on gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers. However, the Democrats' plan is more decisive, banning all gifts from lobbyists. The Republican plan will most likely limit gift-giving to $20 per gift and $50 per year from a given lobbyist.

Both the Democrats and Republicans propose extending the ban on lobbying by former members of Congress from one to two years after they have left office. The Democrats' plan extends the post-employment ban to senior congressional staff, and Executive Branch officials. Republicans, while asserting that the "revolving door" is a problem, have not clearly addressed the post-employment ban. Both the Democrats and Republicans would stop former lawmakers from lobbying on the floor of the House and Senate.

We support these efforts in principle and look forward to detailed proposals.

The Democrats offer a number of reform principles that we believe Congress should also pursue:

• An end to the "pay-to-play" schemes propagated by Republicans that pressured associations and lobby firms to hire Republicans supportive of their leadership agenda and demanded campaign contributions in return for access to lawmakers.

• A requirement of lawmakers and senior congressional staff to disclose negotiations for private sector jobs and of Executive Branch officials seeking private employment to first receive approval from the Office of Government Ethics.

• A requirement that conference committee activities be done in sunlight with a 24-hour review period (except in emergencies), thus adding greater fairness and transparency to the legislative process.

• Disclosure requirements for government contracts and an end to no-bid contracting.

• A requirement that appointees to public safety posts have training and credentials in the area they are appointed to oversee, to curb cronyism in key governmental jobs.

• Strong enforcement mechanisms, such as criminal penalties for not complying with many of the new reforms. They also would require annual ethics training for all congressional staff.

The Republican plan will likely include several reforms we think Congress should also consider:

• Forfeiture of pensions for lawmakers convicted of felonies.

• Restrictions on earmarks in the appropriations process. The Republicans did not appear in complete agreement on this point, but we believe it has a great deal of merit.

• A ban on lobbying by spouses and relatives of lawmakers. Again, consensus among Republicans appeared lacking on this point, but some version of this principle should be pursued.

Congress should also take up a number of other proposals to clean up corruption in Washington:

• There should be powerful citizen tools to enforce all new rules. First, there should be far greater transparency, a key component of which is a free one-stop, searchable Internet database that the public can use to hold elected officials accountable. At a minimum, this Internet library should include information on:

  - campaign contributions
  - lobby activities and expenditures
  - travel and gifts
  - "revolving door" activities
  - federal grants and contracts, and
  - proposed earmarks.

  The library should be searchable by name of lawmaker or staff, by company or lobbyist, and other key ways. Second, Congress should consider citizen suits to enforce reform provisions enacted.

• Access to lawmakers through existing communications channels must be improved. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the most expedient way to communicate with Congress is through email. Yet email filters limit communication to members to messages from individuals in their districts. There is no way to email committee members as they deliberate a bill. This skews the playing field in favor of those with money and DC insiders.

• The budget process must be repaired to ensure fairness and transparency. PAYGO rules that existed in the 1990s must be reinstated. Among other desperately needed improvements, appropriations bills should be negotiated and amended openly with a 72-hour wait period before floor consideration, so that lawmakers and the public can inspect bills.

• Clean elections should be a goal toward ensuring lasting reform. There are many approaches to fair, clean elections, but we believe that implementing some form of publicly financed elections would do wonders to mitigate the corrupting influence money exerts in politics today.