Ethics, Senate-style

After a brief display of obstructionism by the new Republican minority, the Senate has joined the House in approving ethics reforms that justify the cliche “far-reaching.” But the Senate’s attempt to end the “culture of corruption,” like the House’s, has a gaping hole: It doesn’t provide for a watchdog within the body to monitor compliance with the new rules.

Gimmicky or not, the Democratic-controlled House’s “first 100 hours” initiative accomplished major reforms, preventing members from accepting gifts, free meals and air travel from lobbyists. The Senate measure approved last week by a 96-2 vote follows suit, with minor differences. Like the House, the Senate voted to shine a light on “earmarks,” the notorious special-interest appropriations or tax breaks that are quietly inserted at the behest of a member. For a while it looked as if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would back a less encompassing earmark provision that would publicize only grants to local governments and nonprofits. But Reid relented after reform groups, heady with their success in the House, appropriately raised the alarm.

The Senate measure is impressive not only in its broad strokes but in its fine print. One part of the legislation would address the “revolving door” problem by doubling — to two years — the period during which a former member of Congress would be unable to lobby his onetime colleagues. Another provision hits home — literally — by prohibiting spouses of senators from lobbying the body (though there is an exception for lobbyists who were in business before their spouses were elected). Still another would deny pensions to members convicted of serious crimes.

Finally, the Senate legislated in an area in which concerns about lobbyists overlap with election reform. The Senate measure requires lobbyists to disclose when they “bundle” individual congressional campaign contributions from relatives, friends and clients — a way for the lobbyists to increase their own clout. Similar legislation was introduced in the House this week.

The reforms approved by the Senate are welcome. But, as with any legal code, compliance is more likely if there is a cop on the beat willing to blow his whistle. Jealous of its prerogatives, the Senate rejected the creation of an Office of Public Integrity to monitor compliance with ethics rules. But both chambers should revisit the idea of a watchdog who would monitor compliance with ethics rules and report infractions to the ethics committees for final disposition.