On the same day last week that disgraced former super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to serve nearly six years in prison for fraud, the U.S. Senate passed a lobbyist-reform measure by a 90-8 vote. The provision would ban lobbyist-paid meals and gifts and tighten some lobbyist reporting.

Supporters argue it will help restore the public's confidence in Congress. Critics suggest it won't change the status quo in a material way.

To critics, the bill is mostly window dressing, particularly because it does not prevent "earmarking," a process by which a lawmaker inserts a special-interest provision to fund a pet project that benefits campaign contributors. Such undebated funding of legislators' pet projects has exploded in recent years to include nearly 14,000 projects — costing taxpayers more than $27 billion in the 2005 federal budget.

Another problem with the Senate effort at reform is that it does nothing to curb the sweet travel perks that allow lawmakers to travel firstclass on lobbyist or corporate tabs.

To be sure, the publicity surrounding Abramoff's sentencing played a role in pressuring the Senate to act. It is unlikely that anyone in Washington would be talking about curtailing lobbyist spending and other reforms without the embarrassments surrounding Abramoff's excesses. Adding to the pressure on Congress to tighten lobbying rules is the case of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who was sentenced to more than eight years in prison just weeks before the Abramoff sentencing.Cunningham, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was convicted of accepting more than $2 million in bribes from mostly defense-related contractors.

Still, Americans can't be blamed for being suspicious about the effectiveness of the latest legislative efforts to curb the influence on money in Congress. Lobbyists' gifts of campaign contributions, meals and luxury travel are perks enjoyed by most members of Congress. Fred Wertheimer, head of the watchdog group Democracy 21, was luke-warm about the Senate's bill, saying, "This is nothing to write home about."

One of the major shortcomings of the Senate's effort, critics contend, is that it contains no provision for efforcement. Common Cause, the good-government group, argues in a commentary on the Senate action that the "Abramoff scandal did not occur because of lack of rules, but because of lack of enforcement."

Several senators, including Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, tried to include the creation of an Office of Public Integrity in the lobbyist-reform legislation, but that provision was removed before the final passage.

There is still hope that a more effective law can become law. Last week's Senate action will not be the end of lobbyist-reform efforts because, as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., noted, Abramoff is facing additional charges and also is cooperating with investigators probing corruption on Capital Hill. He surely will be the subject of future headlines, and Congress will again be under pressue to clean up its act.

Lieberman, too, has said he will not give up on the creation of an independent agency for ethics oversight and enforcement. When it comes to ethics, Congress clearly has failed in policing itself.

Eliminating the influence of money on politicians and politics is not possible. Tougher rules and, more importantly, tough enforcement as well as penalties are needed for any change to occur.

This latest attempt at lobbyist reform might represent some minor progress, but the money and influence will still flow between special intersts and members of Congress.

Voters should remember that it would not be necessary for Congress to pass laws to regulate or constrain unethical lobbyists who try to buy influence in Congress if there were no lawmakers willing to sell influence — for campaign contributions, luxury travel or, in a few cases, personal gain. The system is broken, and this latest attempt will do little to change things. Tougher rules and strict enforcement are needed.