From USA Today:

Congress' ethics for sale
Tue Feb 27, 7:10 AM ET
Changing rules is easy. Changing bad habits is hard, particularly on Capitol Hill, where free winter trips to warm places, big donations to campaign treasuries and fat salaries in post-congressional careers are perennial temptations. Like serial dieters unable to resist a chocolate sundae, plenty of current and former members of Congress appear to be caving in. Or is it cashing in?

On several fronts in the past week, commitments to reduce lobbyists' influence and limit conflicts of interest were being tested, skirted or just avoided.

•USA TODAY reported that five of the 39 members of Congress rejected by voters just three months ago have already signed on at firms that seek to influence Congress. One is a Democrat. Four are Republicans, two of whom (Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania and Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana) lost their jobs in part because of ethical questions.

This is one of Washington's oldest problems. The more easily and quickly members of Congress can cash in on public service, the more likely it is that they'll serve special interests instead. Federal law requires them to wait a year before before lobbying Congress, but it leaves a loophole letting them advise lobbyists. It's a safe bet that the number whirling through the revolving door will rise.

•The new Democratic leadership in the Capitol, meanwhile, already appears to be retreating from ethical commitments made just a month ago to change Washington's "culture of corruption." The Washington Post reported that in the next several days, Democratic fundraisers will feature chairmen of three House and Senate committees. The unspoken message: Big donations from special interests will provide access.

•The Democrats' new ethical rules, launched with much fanfare last month, also appear to be heading for a test. The rules don't take effect until Thursday, but records compiled by the non-partisan group PoliticalMoneyLine and reported in USA TODAY suggest that several members of Congress aren't exactly rushing to comply. Five lawmakers in recent weeks took trips paid for by groups that lobby Congress. Under the rules, such trips would either be banned or draw scrutiny from the House Ethics Committee.

What to make of all this? First, that the greater the temptation, the tighter the rules need to be, and the ones passed by the Democrats aren't tight enough.

On travel, the best approach would be to have the public pay for congressional trips, with full reporting of the details for the public to see. Any other option leaves loopholes. The Democratic reform, for instance, allows short trips paid for by groups that lobby Congress and longer ones by other groups. On post congressional lobbying careers, the ban should be tougher and longer. A bill passed by the Senate extended it to two years; the House hasn't taken it up.

But what's most lacking is the will to honor the spirit of the rules, not just the letter. As the Democrats' use of their committee chairmen attests, not even the leadership that invented the rules appears ready to go that far.