While we wait for the new House Rules draft to be posted online, it's a good time to reflect on the kind of problems that these rules changes are solving, and the kinds of changes that they aren't solving.

I characterized the 72 Hour Rule and the committee reforms this morning as "the kinds of changes that can change the way citizens relate to the legislative process online." Citizens will have a better opportunity to understand committees' work, and to follow legislation before it's considered on the floor.

Transparency in Congress, though, also takes on another target: influence. While we'll have to wait and see what kind of ethics reforms are in the House Rules for the 112th Congress, we're reassured that the Office of Congressional Ethics will continue its vital operations.

Even that office, though, has to contend with a deeper problem. Congress often lacks clear standards about what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior.

The line between coincidence and quid pro quo is often blurry and gray. The politics of ethics accusations thrives on this ambiguity, and public attitudes about Congress suffer as well.

Take, for example, this passage from a New York Times story about Members of Congress meeting with foreign governments:

But Mr. Rohrabacher’s trip last February was different because he pushed for small, specific companies with which he had personal and political ties. The coin dealer, John R. Saunders, is a big contributor to Mr. Rohrabacher’s campaigns, dating back at least a decade. The president of SG Biofuels, Kirk Haney, is a friend of Mr. Rohrabacher’s wife and a former intern in the congressman’s office, Mr. Rohrabacher said, as well as a contributor.

Members of Congress often push for the interests of businesses in their district, and Rohrabacher is pushing for businesses that related directly to his campaign (through contributions) and his family (through personal relationships). Does that make it wrong, though?

Eyebrow raising, perhaps even eye-popping. But will it come up in campaign season? Will the Ethics Committee investigate? Will the Office of Congressional Ethics? Do voters care? Or is this just a legislator, faithfully representing his constituents?

This problem plays itself out in one arena after another. Earmarks to campaign contributors may give off the appearance of impropriety, but prosecution is entirely unlikely, since Members can always appeal to their discretion in assessing merit.

The same holds for fundraisers held near votes. It stinks to high heaven of votes for sale, but the practice is still widespread.

In order to distinguish between "business as usual" and corruption, we need to draw better lines about what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable. Currently, those lines are negotiated through a fierce and cynical politics of ethics accusations, combined with the ethics guidelines that savvy legislators can often easily skirt. Those standards, all to often, prove insufficient.

Those insufficient standards, in turn, create opportunities for Members of Congress to exploit -- for personal or political gain.

Most clearly, we need better disclosure of the information of ethics and influence, so we can make better determinations about what is corrupt and what isn't. The personal financial disclosures of Members of Congress and top staffers should be disclosed in meaningful detail, and filings with the Clerk and Secretary of the Senate should be publicly available online, not just through an office visit.

Most urgently, we need better disclosure of newly deregulated spending on political ads and the lobbying it empowers, so that we will at least know whether powerful interests are perverting the integrity of our public policy.

Letter to the Editor at the New York Times this morning. It's worth posting in full.

Published: January 28, 2009

To the Editor:

President Obama's executive order of Jan. 21, "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel," is well intentioned but naïve and essentially unenforceable. The lobbying ban on "particular matters" perpetuates the same loophole that has made the federal "revolving door" criminal statute a dead letter since Congress first passed it decades ago.

For these ethics restrictions to work, there must be an open, publicly accessible reporting system where every executive branch appointee records meetings with registered lobbyists during and after working hours, both inside and outside the office.

I served as court-appointed independent counsel in the investigation and prosecution of Michael K. Deaver after he left the Reagan White House to open his own lobbying firm.

Mr. Deaver made millions from lobbying his former colleagues. Our legal staff found we could prosecute him only for lying to the grand jury about his lobbying activities. He easily evaded the revolving door criminal statute by using assistants to make direct contacts with executive branch officials, or simply by discussing a client's objectives in generalities instead of "particular" matters. Through traditional law enforcement techniques and a lot of hard work interviewing witnesses, he was convicted of perjury and was fined and sentenced to community service.

If the president is really serious about ending closed-door lobbying of his administration, his staff should study our report, "Executive Branch Lobbying," published by the Government Printing Office in 1989, to find out how to stop these abuses.

It can still be done by executive order, but transparency is the key. As Justice Louis D. Brandeis said, an electric light is the best policeman.

Whitney North Seymour Jr.

New York, Jan. 25, 2009

Today, we are launching a new Web site, Party Time, a project to track parties thrown at the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions as well as fund raising activities by all lawmakers running for Congress that happen all year round in Washington, D.C. and beyond.

The count of parties and events we've heard about scheduled for the Democratic and Republican National Conventions is now above 400-and counting. As we noted the other week, here, these convention parties are often sponsored by corporate interests such as Citi, Eli Lilly and Qwest, as well as powerhouse lobbying firms such as Patton Boggs. They continue despite new ethics reforms intended to rein in excesses of special interest bashes for members of Congress. Many of these party hosts are also sponsors of the conventions' host committees, major donors to federal candidates and party committees and are also big spenders on federal lobbying.

So, for example:

AT&T is hosting more than a dozen parties at both conventions, most of them parties for different state delegations. The company is also underwriting both the Democratic and GOP Convention committees, and happens to be the #2 top donor to federal and candidates and parties since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. AT&T has spent more than $3 million on federal campaign contributions and lobbying combined in 2008 alone, 60% of which is directed to the GOP. It has also spent another $3.2 million on federal lobbying.

Qwest's CEO, Ed Mueller, is hosting an event at the Denver Art Museum on Monday, August 25. The company is also giving the Democratic and GOP Convention host committees a total of some $12 million in direct and in-kind contributions. Qwest has given $682,000 to federal candidates and parties so far this election cycle, and spent $1.7 million on lobbying.

A long list of financial service powerhouses are sponsoring a "financial literacy brunch" at the Democratic National Convention, including Allstate, AEGON, Bank of America, Capitol One, Charles Schwab, Edward Jones, Fidelity, Genworth, MasterCard, Mutual of Omaha, Nationwide, Principal Financial Group, State Farm, NASDAQ, US Bank, Visa, Wachovia and Wells Fargo. These companies are major campaign contributors and lobbying forces in Washington.

At Party Time, we'll be tracking these parties and events at the conventions. And we'll keep tracking parties after the conventions are over. We've already compiled information on fundraising parties for members of Congress and congressional candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, dating back to 2006, often posting invitations before the events happen.

While invitations to these parties and events go out by the dozen to lobbyists, there is no official requirement that they be reported to the public. Sunlight collects them from sources whose anonymity is protected. Because of this, the list of parties is ever-growing as we hear about them. Since we don't hear about all the parties, you can also tell us if you know where the party is and we don't.

If you receive invitations, you can submit them anonymously to the Party Time Web site.

I never thought I'd write this in a blog post-but: party on, dude!