Because ethics makes for such good political fodder, the `culture of corruption' in Washington will certainly be a central issue in the 2006 mid-term elections, like it was in 1994. Unfortunately, however, a willingness to decry unethical behavior in Congress does not translate into a commensurate enthusiasm for reform. Both Democrats and Republicans have been resistant to strengthening ethics rules in Congress during one of the worst Congressional scandals in history. Many members continue to characterize genuine reform proposals as an overreaction to the scandal, regarding the public's cynicism as a passing condition. As such, the ethics and lobbying reform packages Congress has proposed for itself lack the basic reforms that will reverse the `anything goes' culture that has developed.

Meanwhile, the costs to the American people of corruption in Washington are clear. From defense contracts, for even highly-classified national security work, that have been granted through the secretive process of earmarking in return for lavish gifts; to the redistricting of one of the largest states in the country, foreclosing the possibility of competitive Congressional elections; to a corruption scandal that touches so many members of Congress that only the war in Iraq is considered a bigger problem facing our country - ethics is at the heart of how Congress does its business. Yet, it is one of the hardest things to change.

The process for enforcing the internal rules of Congress is an inherently conflicted process. Members of Congress must investigate their colleagues, even when the subject of the investigation may be a powerful member of Congress, such as Majority Leader DeLay. This has led to the complete irrelevance of the ethics committees in both the House and Senate as effective watchdogs of Congressional behavior. The committees have failed to make any difference during the Abramoff scandal and have lost all public confidence. The system of ethics oversight in Congress is as much to blame for the current scandal - and its subsequent costs - as anything else.

Congress is scheduled to take up some reform proposals in the next couple of weeks. So far, it doesn't look like they are prepared to do anything more than window dressing. This NY Times editorial had it right in the last line:The editorial lists some key reforms: ban on travel, 2-year revolving door cooling off period, and full electronic disclosure (also lists an end to convention parties -- this should happen, but I don't see it as much of a priority - the conventions are no longer anything more than a party anyway).

Instead of serious reforms, we're seeing a focus on earmarks (yes, they should be limited, but again, not my priority) and cracking down on Native Americans, even though the vast majority of tribes have no casinoes and live in poverty.