Political Skullduggery

House and Senate Democrats are joining in the "shocked, shocked" lobbying reform melodramatics begun earlier this week by the Republicans.

The Democrats plan differs only slightly from the Republican scheme. There is a sly touch or two:

Democrats also take direct aim at some of the legislative practices that have become established in the past 10 years of Republican rule in Congress. They vowed to end the K Street Project, under which Republicans in Congress pressure lobbying organizations to hire only Republican staff members and contribute only to Republican candidates.

Let me see if I understand correctly, lobbying would be restricted, but Dems want equal access to the largesse.

This next part will "disappear" from the final legislation. You can bet on it.

Lawmakers would have to publicly disclose negotiations over private-sector jobs, a proposal inspired by then-House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman W.J. "Billy" Tauzin's job talks in 2003 that led to his hiring as president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in January 2005. Executive branch officials who are negotiating private-sector jobs would need approval from the independent Office of Governmental Ethics.

Lets keep the scandal focused where it belongs, on the Republicans:

"Mr. Abramoff and his associates will be held up as the beginning and end of our congressional crisis, but they are just the symptom of a larger problem," said Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.). "Now is the time to realize that the Republican members of Congress who put America up for sale have neither the ability nor the credibility to lead us in a new direction."...

So far, the scandal has had a distinctly Republican focus. The GOP has received nearly two-thirds of the campaign donations from Abramoff's lobbying team and Indian tribal clients, and 100 percent of his personal donations. Federal prosecutors looking into the Abramoff case have so far implicated only a Republican lawmaker, a Bush administration procurement official and GOP aides in charging documents.

Still, Republicans have worked hard to convince voters that any corruption in the capital is bipartisan, alleging Democratic abuses to match the charges against Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), like House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), signed a letter in 2002 to Interior Secretary Gail A. Norton on behalf of an Abramoff client around the time he received a large campaign contribution from Abramoff's tribal clients. Edward P. Ayoob, a former Reid aide, was a member of Abramoff's lobbying team.

Maybe the Democrats should let the Republicans face the music alone, rather than offering to take some of the heat:

And as Democrats try to widen the focus of the corruption scandal, they risk bringing more scrutiny to party lawmakers. Yesterday, Democrats repeatedly mentioned the guilty plea of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) in a bribery scheme not connected to Abramoff.

But a Democrat, Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), is under a similar cloud. Last week, Brett M. Pfeffer, a former Jefferson aide, pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe Jefferson, who, in exchange for his support, allegedly demanded a 5 to 7 percent stake in one of two West African Internet and cable television companies that Pfeffer's firm was investing in.

"When I hear Democratic Party leaders throwing around terms like 'culture of corruption,' I have to think, 'You oughta know,' " said Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), a candidate for the post of House majority leader.

Anyone expecting real change in the "culture of corruption" may not want to hold their breath too long. Money rules Washington. Always has. Always will.