Jack Abramoff's ghost wonders around the Capitol in Washington. The frightened Congressmen and Senators renounce any acquaintance with the super-lobbyist accused of bribing them and frantically return his donations. The chambers of the Parliament seen through the prism of Abramoff affair resemble Augias Stable. The scandal mainly incriminates the Republicans, but whether it will cause any power shifting between the parties in the upcoming elections is hard to predict. To rehabilitate, the Republican leaders announce a reform and healing the lobbying. The reality of such sensation is doubtful since the same individuals who in fact caused the disease, i.e. the politicians from the Congress, will conduct the healing process.

At last, in 1946 for the first time, the Congress passed the Act of Federal Regulation of Lobbying, but it remained a legal fiction. It was so poorly written that e.g. omitting the requirement of registering a lobbying activity did not cause any problems. More effective law was introduced by the Act of Open Lobbying passed just 10 years ago (exactly in 1995) It states that lobbyists are obliged to register and submit a periodic reports for who and how much they work for. Members of the Congress are not allowed to accept any gifts for a total amount of over 100 dollars annually. The necessity of the regulation became urgent when the number of lobbyists grows at an alarming rate- there are about 27 thousand of them in Washington alone, over twice as many as 15 years ago. "K Street" in Washington, i.e. the center of the businesses in this field, was growing along with the growth of federal government, which first accelerated during the period of New Deal (the 30's) and then during the 60's, President Johnson's Great Society. Private businesses had to keep up with the growing power of the nation.

Thanks to the legal regulations the relations between the politicians and the lobbyists took on a more civilized nature, but of course both sides found new, quite legal ways of "making the wheel go round" of the legislation machine. Instead of petty bribes under the table, now there are trips funded to the legislators, prestigious jobs for the wives, tickets to golf tournaments, and dinners in luxurious restaurants. Moreover, primarily- increasingly generous support for the increasingly more expensive election campaigns in the USA. The lobbyists- enter stronger and difficult to break treaties with the legislators- they act as consultants, organize committees of political campaign (PAC's) and fund collection. In fact, Jack Abramoff did the same, only he operated with record-breaking sums, and was caught because he cheated his clients (Indian tribes) and did not pay the taxes. Abramoff, dressed in his black coat and a hat like in a gangster film, is only a colorful caricature of lobbying.

Clearly, it is difficult to prove to the members of the Congress that their choice of vote is related to the presents received from the lobbies. Although it is a fact that especially in the recent years the so called earmarks have been multiplying, i.e. amendments in the acts added in the last moment, often unnoticed and passed without any further discussion. These are usually simple tax allowances for corporations and other pressure groups, or additional expenditure for local investments, forced by particular interest as the famous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. In this way, the Congressmen gain points among the voters, but it has not much to do with public interest. The massively funded "pork" at the taxpayers cost - caused in the current decade a record-breaking budget deficit threatening economical crises.

Deterioration of the system also hinders public interest in a different aspect. The role of money and the growing power of the well paid lobbyists results in an unfair battle for influence. Not everyone can afford to hire a lobby company, not everyone has time for a social lobbying in the Congress for their business. As a result the stronger and the richer have an advantage in the start, large corporations, huge professional associations etc., as well as special environments, which can afford to stay in business, e.g. pensioners associated with the AARP. Weaker groups such as the- poor, immigrants, and "nonunion" workers - are not heard in the Washington.     

     
The disease of lobbying which lead the incidents mentioned above, are mainly the responsibility of the Republicans- since they for over 11 years have been in power in the Capitol. Even though they have gained the majority in the Congress using conservative slogans of slimming the government (criticizing the Democrats for abusing power), they themselves in the strive for reinforcing their power- lead to the impairment of the economy, increased corruption and social tensions. Abramoff has also worked for some Democrats, but a majority of his clients were G.O.P. politicians and the investigation primarily accuses their Republican leader Tom Delay who has been disposed as troublesome ballast. Will the party pay for its excesses in the elections to the Congress? The poles have shown that it is possible, but there are still lots of time until November.

The reform projects announced by the Republicans predict a detailed disclosure by the lobbyists who they work for, how much funds they collect for their clients and counting the presents for the legislators worth e.g. more than 20 dollars. It would be a rather cosmetic change. A more significant change already proposed by the Democrats would be to ban the politicians to travel at the expense of the lobbyists. A Democratic senator Russ Feingold wants to forbid giving any presents to the members of the Congress and their assistants The majority of Americans - according to the opinion polls - consider the custom of giving presents to the politicians by the lobbyists as unethical and should be made illegal. However, nobody believes that in the predicted time the Congress will do as the people think. There are only slight chances for modest reforms, which will not change much. It appears that the politicians want to maintaining status quo.