GOP Mulls Life After DeLay

Dotty Lynch is CBSNews.com's Political Points columnist. E-mail your questions and comments to Political Points

With the plea bargain of DeLay's pal Jack Abramoff and a spate of new polls showing the Republicans in trouble in the 2006 midterm elections, Tom DeLay finally saw the light. After months of on-the-record support for the Texas congressman, including a few kind words from the president and a very public campaign appearance by the vice president in December, White House advisers suddenly tripped all over themselves to distance themselves from DeLay. They told Time magazine's Matt Cooper and Mike Allen that the Bush-DeLay relationship is merely a professional "alliance, not a friendship," and that DeLay was someone whom the Bush inner circle considered a "necessary burden."

A Republican who is described by Time as "close" to the Bush inner circle delivered the unkindest cut. "They have always seen him as beneath them, more blue collar. He's seen as a useful servant, not someone you would want to vacation with." An official described as close to both Karl Rove and DeLay chimed in that the two have never been close. "Karl thinks of him as someone a little bit too opinionated for his own good. And DeLay thinks of Karl as a former mail vendor, not some great guru."

So, having dispatched with DeLay, the question is how the Republicans deal with the system DeLay put together. The Washington Post described DeLay's personal penchant for traveling on corporate jets rather than commercial airlines (he even used a corporate plane owned by the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company to go to Texas for his October court appearance), but noted somewhat approvingly that he was not "selfish" and that "he earned the gratitude of many colleagues by extending the same perquisites to them in exchange for their votes. According to his former colleagues, DeLay's office functioned at times like a hotel concierge, arranging corporate jets, private cars, fishing trips and other expense-paid travel during congressional breaks, key votes and party conventions, all financed by wealthy donors with interests before Congress," the Post reported on Sunday.

Most Republicans know that in the scramble for a new leader they also need a new image. The investigations of Abramoff and other DeLay cronies, as well as that of Rep Duke Cunningham, are going to embarrass members for months to come and the Democrats are salivating about using this as their way back to control of the Congress. But there is much skepticism about whether they are willing to abandon the concierge model since the money chase is still a basic part of politics today. Part of the cachet of Rep. Mike Rogers for the new leadership team is his background in the FBI. But Rogers is being touted as a good fundraiser as well.

Speaker Dennis Hastert has put together a panel led by Rep. David Drier to come up with some reforms and there seems to be consensus on greater disclosure and limiting lobbyist-paid-for travel. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, a born-again reformer, has been weighing in on the new model, suggesting abandoning fundraising inside D.C. and a weekly posting on the Internet of contacts between members and lobbyists. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks has suggested a one-year moratorium on earmarks, those multimillion-dollar projects which members stick into bills at 3 a.m. on behalf of their favorite special interests.

Some of these proposals have real merit (although the virtue of only having fundraisers out of town isn't readily apparent to me). But unless the media is willing to assume a greater watchdog role and devote serious resources to making the connection between the lobbyists, money and legislation, more disclosure will do nothing but overwhelm people with numbers.

The current scandal involves some personal enrichment and individual greed and lust for power. But a good deal of it has to do with a system developed to raise big money to pay for expensive modern campaigns. Until there is a reduction in the cost of campaigns, either by drastically cutting the cost of TV advertising or by public financing, the money chase will continue and the opportunities for corruption will remain intact.