There is no dearth of partying going on at the party conventions over the next two weeks.  According to USA Today, lobbyists have figured out how to entertain members of Congress and their guests -- all allowed by loopholes in the new ethics law :

The ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting meals, gifts or entertainment from lobbyists and groups that employ them.

They also prohibit senators and House members from attending lobbyist-funded parties thrown in their honor. But there are exemptions. Members of Congress, for instance, still can snack at lobbyist-funded events if nothing more substantial than finger food is served.

They also can go to "widely attended" gatherings as long as at least 25 people who aren't in Congress also participate and the event is related to their "official duties."

And none of the restrictions applies to functions that either raise campaign money, collect cash for charities or are sponsored by political fundraising committees.

Former Congressman Lee Hamilton from Indiana has a column in today's News and Tribune titled "Rebuiding Congress."  He makes several critical points, including this one:

In part, it lies with thoroughgoing ethics reform: Congress has made a start over the last year, but too many members still fail to understand how their low institutional standing stems from public mistrust. Congress must insist that all of its members reflect credit on the institution, as the basic code of conduct requires.

Interesting editorial about ethics in today's East Valley (AZ) Tribune.   Ethics reform does depend on House members wanting it to work -- and, unfortunately, even under the new system, success depends on House members policing themselves.  That is unlikely:

But the House brought this on itself. The ethics committee was never a ball of investigatory fire, but under Republican leadership it became totally inert and was almost hopelessly tainted when the GOP leadership tried to manipulate the panel to protect then-Republican leader Tom DeLay.

While the committee sat by passively, two House members were jailed, two more were indicted, several more are under investigation and there was an embarrassing scandal involving a member and the congressional pages.

The upshot, said Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., principal author of the independent panel: “The public really does not trust us on ethics issues at this point. They think we are all here protecting each other.” No fools, the public.

The OCE may be an effective body or it may not — it has no power to compel testimony. As with other attempts at ethics reform, this one will work only if the House members themselves want it to.

Despite a "far from perfect" proposal, despite two members of imprisoned Congress and two more under indictment, despite an Ethics Committee that doesn't function, The New York Times notes that the House came "kicking and screaming towards reform":

Effective oversight by credible professionals should ease members’ fears of partisan witch hunts. It may even help repair the tattered reputation of the House ethics committee that averted its eyes from Jack Abramoff, the imprisoned superlobbyist. There are now two members of Congress serving time, two under indictments and others being investigated in that mess.

The measure is far from perfect; the new integrity office was denied subpoena power. But it can be a healthy step forward. Now it is up to Mr. Boehner to prove that his party wants to help win back public trust.

The Hill reports on the tough struggle to pass the House ethics reform bill. Make no mistake, CREW thinks the new proposal is "simply a paper tiger." Freshmen Congressman Zach Space said, We haven’t been very good at policing ourselves.”  He's right.  But, that didn't seem to faze many members --  some of whom tried procedural roadblocks to prevent the legislation from moving forward.  And, some who have their own ethical issues weren't too keen on the tightening ethics rules at all: 

As late as Monday evening, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who has opposed ethics reform measures in the past, said he remained undecided about the measure. He voted with Democratic leaders on the procedural vote, but voted against the resolution.

“We have a New York governor in the news right who shows that you can’t legislate ethics,” he said. “It always comes down to the individual.”

In the end, three committee chairs voted against the resolution: Dingell, who chairs the Energy and Commerce committee, as well as Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (Mo.) and Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Bob Filner (Calif.).

Reps. John Doolittle (D-Calif.), who is under FBI investigation for his ties to Abramoff, voted against the resolution, while Rep.William Jefferson (La.), who faces trial on bribery and corruption charges, voted for it. Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), who was indicted last month for his role in a land deal, was not present for the vote.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, registered his displeasure with the proposal by using a parliamentary tactic to delay the vote. Just after 8 p.m., Abercrombie forced a vote on a motion to adjourn, which only served to delay the vote on the ethics resolution until an hour later. The vote failed 177 to 196, with 14 Democrats voting in favor of it.

Afterward, Abercrombie railed against the proposal to resounding applause on both sides of the aisle.

“With this proposal we are indicting ourselves, yielding and retreating to those who would tear this House down and denigrate us as crooks and knaves and hustlers…we cringe before our critics,” he said. “If we have no respect for ourselves—how to we expect it from anybody else?”

Statement from Melanie Sloan: 

We are skeptical of the latest so-called ethics reform measure. Given the pathetic performance of the Ethics Committee over the past decade we have advocated for the creation of a new, independent ethics office. Nevertheless, without subpoena power or the ability to consider complaints filed by anyone other than members of Congress, this new office, like the Ethics Committee itself, promises to be nothing more than a paper tiger. Rather than providing for the vigorous enforcement of ethics rules, the House merely has created a new layer of bureaucracy to insulate members from the consequences of their unethical activities. When the American public realizes there are no teeth behind this latest reform effort, confidence in Congress will be further eroded, the cynics will claim victory and we will be no closer to the goal of a cleaner Congress than we were at the beginning of the 'cleanest Congress in history.'

Carl Hulse, writing at The Caucus blog at the NY Times, thinks the House leadership may push for a vote on the new ethics proposal this week: 

House Democrats may also try for a third time to force a vote on the creation of an independent ethics panel that could review suspected wrongdoing by lawmakers.

Rank-and-file members of both parties have balked, but Democratic leaders say they are determined to move ahead after tweaking the initial proposal to alleviate some criticism. Their view is that once the proposal hits the floor, most lawmakers will be reluctant to vote against it considering that two current members – Republican Renzi of Arizona and Democrat Bill Jefferson of Louisiana – are under indictment and others are under investigation.

You'd think that would matter.   You'd also think that given all the House ethics scandals, members would be pushing for very strong ethics rules.   You'd think. 

Another, longer delay. Another commitment to move forward and pass a bill:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to commit Thursday to bringing up a controversial ethics measure for a vote next week, raising the possibility that it may be at least April before the House addresses the issue again.

“We will pass the bill,’’ the California Democrat predicted. “I don’t know what the timing will be.’’

If the measure strongly supported by Pelosi and authored by Rep. Michael E. Capuano , D-Mass., isn’t voted on next week, it will be held over until the House returns from its two-week Easter recess. That would mean it would be early April, at the earliest, before the measure could reach the floor.

Such a long break could give Pelosi and Capuano, who has already introduced one set of amendments to his measure, more time to address lawmakers’s concerns, make changes or pressure more Democrats into supporting it. It would also give outside groups such as Common Cause and U.S. PIRG more opportunity to lobby skeptical House members.

But Pelosi, who has made lobbying and ethics reform a hallmark of her “New Directions’’ Congress, insisted that the concept of an outside ethics panel to work alongside the existing ethics committee will remain the centerpiece of the Capuano resolution.

Today, we learned that once again the House independent ethics office legislation will not be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives. While CREW does not support the current legislation – without subpoena power or the ability to field complaints from outsiders it is simply a new layer of bureaucracy – the endless delay in addressing the abominable, unethical activities in the House is at the very least disheartening. 

A timeline for the independent ethics office follows the stories below.

The results of the 2006 election clearly showed that ethics do matter to the American public. The inability of congressional leaders to address ethics could affect this year’s outcome on both sides of the aisle.

As reported by CNN on November 8, 2006, Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls:

Exit poll interviewers, working on behalf of the Associated Press, CNN and four other networks, were stationed at about 1,000 precincts around the country Tuesday, asking voters to describe themselves and their opinions on important issues...Asked which issues were extremely important to their vote, 42 percent said corruption and ethics; 40 percent, terrorism; 39 percent, the economy; 37 percent, Iraq; 36 percent, values; and 29 percent, illegal immigration.

On November 8, 2006 A National Republican Campaign Committee e-mail obtained by National Journal reported:

The Scandal Factor Was Costly. We lost several seats by the self-inflicted route: AZ-05, CA-11, FL-16, NY-20, NC-11, OH-18, PA-07, PA-10, and TX-22. Note that with the exception of PA-07, all of these are fairly reliable Republican districts.

As reported by the Houston Chronicle on November 9, 2006:

"Every member or district that had an issue related to the professional conduct of that member switched and became Democratic," Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who headed the Democrats' congressional campaign efforts, said today. "That was eight seats — half of the 15 you needed."

Former Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Republicans miscalculated in deciding not to respond to the scandals by passing ethics legislation.

House Republicans blocked efforts to ban lobbyist-paid meals and to prevent lawmakers from accepting cut-rate charter flights on corporate jets. The only measure to be enacted identified lawmakers who obtained funding for local projects known as earmarks. That rule expires when Congress adjourns in January.

As reported by the Associated Press on December 22, 2006:

Asked about the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate in the midterm elections, Mrs. Cheney said scandals cost the GOP many votes.

"I think Iraq was part of it, but I also think that you had some extraordinary ethical failures," she said. "They were bipartisan, but I do think the Republicans paid a great price for that." She noted the cases of former Republican congressman Mark Foley, who resigned over sexually explicit messages sent to male pages, and Randy Cunningham, who pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from defense contractors.

"I think those exacted a terrible price," she said.

As reported by Robert Novak on July 30, 2007:

Karl Rove, President Bush's political lieutenant, told a closed-door meeting of 2008 Republican House candidates and their aides Tuesday that it was less the war in Iraq than corruption in Congress that caused their party's defeat in the 2006 elections.

Rove's clear advice to the candidates is to distance themselves from the culture of Washington. Specifically, Republican candidates are urged to make clear they have no connection with disgraced congressmen such as Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley. In effect, Rove was rebutting the complaint inside the party that Bush is responsible for Republican miseries by invading Iraq.

Timeline:

January 31, 2007: Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Leader Boehner (R-OH) appoint ethics task force, chaired by Reps. Mike Capuano (D-MA) and Lamar Smith (R-TX). Speaker Pelosi sets a deadline of May 1, 2007 for the recommendations of the task force. (The Politico)

May 1, 2007: May 1 comes and goes with no recommendations from the task force.

July 3, 2007: Rep. Capuano tells The Hill: “I haven’t had a timeline from day one.” (The Hill)

December 19, 2007: Recommendations finally released by Rep. Capuano, which are not supported by the Republican members of the task force. (Rep. Capuano Press Release)

February 27, 2008: Ethics bill vote is scheduled for February 28 (The Hill), but postponed at the last minute by House Democratic Leaders. (The Politico)

March 3, 2008: Rep. Capuano proposes series of amendments to bill, again without the support of the Republican members of the task force (Rep. Capuano “Dear Colleague” Letter), and another vote is scheduled for March 6. (The Hill)

March 5, 2007: For the second time, House Democratic Leaders postpone the vote on the ethics bill. (Roll Call)

As the U.S. House of Representatives continues to debate whether to even proceed with the ethics reform legislation, an editorial in today's Los Angeles Times calls for even stronger reform.  Yet, the House can't even manage to pass the bill before it:

The most positive change in the legislation would be one that Pelosi and Capuano aren't promoting -- subpoena power for the new office. Without that power, the office could find it difficult to assemble the sort of case against a member that would require the Ethics Committee to take notice. Capuano's bill would allow the office to identify potential targets of subpoenas in the reports it sends to the Ethics Committee, but that's a poor substitute for the ability to examine documents and witnesses itself.

Because House Republicans are cool to the creation of any independent ethics operation, Pelosi needs overwhelming support from her party to launch a new era in ethics enforcement. What matters isn't the number of Democrats who vote to create a new ethics office, but that office's ability to pursue allegations of wrongdoing into hidden recesses of lawmakers' dealings with lobbyists, contractors and contributors. A toothless watchdog would be as bad as no watchdog at all.