It's time to clean up this here town ... again.

The town in need of tidying up isn't in the Old West. It's modern-day Washington, D.C., the seat of our federal government.

The latest cleaning impulses among elected officials are driven by the potential political mess resulting from guilty pleas to corruption charges by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate. Oh, and don't forget about former-Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a California Republican, resigning in disgrace in November, pleading guilty to assorted corruption charges, including taking bribes.

It's amazing how such events can transform the average politician into a passionate reformer. In recent days, House Republicans have served up a package of lobbying reforms. U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has new allies in support of his "Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act."

Naturally, the Democrats have made their call for reform, declaring they must fight a Republican "culture of corruption." My goodness, was Congress squeaky clean when the Democrats were in charge? Far from it.

During this bipartisan flurry for reform, one must be cautious whenever Congress claims the moral high ground with grandiose plans for reforming the system. Either the baby gets thrown out with the bath water, or the law of intended consequences takes hold.

In 2002, for example, politicians promised that campaign finance reform was going to scrub federal politics clean of the so-called corrupting influences of money. Apparently, that didn't work too well. However, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law did wind up limiting the free speech rights of Americans by banning broadcast issue ads by outside groups, that is, incorporated entities or unions, that mention federal candidates by name 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days before a general election.

Despite that free speech guarantee in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- above all, protecting political speech -- the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this blatant assault on free speech in a narrow 5-to-4 decision in December 2003.

However, another case is now before the Court dealing specifically with the issue ad portion of the campaign finance law. So, we must hope that at least five Supreme Court justices can manage this time around to protect our constitutional rights that were trampled in 2002 by Congress and the White House, and by the Court in 2003.

Now, ignoring that current law seems to be working, as illustrated by the pleas being copped, the craze to do something - anything - regarding lobbying reform is on full tilt.

One dubious outcome that seems assured after looking at the McCain bill, for example, is that costs - in terms of time and resources - will rise for those lobbying the government. For example, is there a substantive point to requiring that lobbying disclosure reports be filed quarterly rather than twice a year? Increased costs, of course, will weigh far more heavily on the little guys and on grassroots efforts simply seeking to be heard in the political process.

How many voices will simply be extinguished from the public square due to the actual and potential costs involved with lobbying their own representatives? Keep in mind that the First Amendment also prohibits Congress from passing laws that abridge the freedom "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As the issue of lobbying reform proceeds in the coming weeks, a critical question must be asked: Why do people, businesses, a mind-numbing array of organizations cutting across the political spectrum, as well as state and local governments lobby? It's no mystery. Politicians in Washington have amassed staggering powers to tax, to spend, and to regulate. That brings to town interests seeking largess or relief.

According to Reuters, in a speech in South Carolina on Monday, January 17, Senator McCain called for cleaning up lobbying abuses and chastised his own party for letting government spending get out of control. He said: "Unless you take out the earmarking, there are always going to be people who line up with their hands out to curry favor with individual members of Congress."

McCain is correct in linking these spending items and lobbying, but does not go nearly far enough. So long as the federal government taxes, spends and regulates to the drastic extent it does now and threatens to do in the future, many people and businesses not only will look for handouts, but countless others also will demand access and try to exert pressure in order to seek relief from government's onerous burdens.

If politicians really don't like the extent of lobbying, there is a clear remedy - stop heaping crushing regulations onto the backs of entrepreneurs and businesses, stop taking so much money out of people's pockets, and stop throwing around billions of those dollars willy-nilly. Stop doing that, and lobbying will decline dramatically.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This column may be reprinted with appropriate credit.

_______
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.