It is the process, not the politicians or lobbyists, that need to be reformed.

The 110th Congress has 61 new members. Out of 535. This wasn't an election year for two-thirds of the Senate, so there were approximately 468 elections in November. So, even though the Democrats dramatically captured both Houses of Congress, 7/8 of incumbents retained their jobs. Considering a number of retirements, the re-election rate of incumbents was even higher than that. Indeed, just 47 new Democrats were elected. That just goes to show how small the Republican majorities were, and how slim the new Democratic majorities are.

Indeed, most House seats are gerrymandered or otherwise "safe" for one party or the other. If you get elected once, you'd have to be blatantly corrupt or incompetent to lose the seat. The last populist uprising was in 1994, when even the Democratic Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, was defeated in a populist Republican "revolution." 2006 saw no such thing; instead all we got was one slim majority replacing another.

Obviously, incumbents have a huge advantage in elections. But there is something else at work here. Perhaps the problem isn't that Congress remains much the same election after election, it is that members of Congress don't want to leave. We idealize the "citizen legislator" who serves for a brief period and then returns to his normal career. But once elected to Congress, a member soon finds out that a) politics and policy is not so simple, and that his principles have be compromised if anything can get done; b) seniority is everything, and he "owes" it to his constituents to stay and increase his seniority and the benefits to the district he could then provide; c) the salary is good, and the perks are great; and d) winning elections and holding power feels good.

In other words, it's too good a job. That's why it is rarely given up voluntarily until one reaches retirement age - if then. But if the make-up of Congress changes little year after year, how can we expect Congress's behavior to change? Does it matter that the Democrats are in power when the Democratic leadership  voted with Republicans on McCain-Feingold,  No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug benefit, Patriot Acts I and II, and the Iraq War?

It wasn't the Republicans who screwed up and destroyed the nation the past six years, it was Congress as a whole. Herb Kohl and Hillary Clinton deserved to be kicked out just as much as George Allen or Rick Santorum.

Ideally, we'd find a way to make the job less attractive, and less enjoyable. Members would be less inclined to stay, and there would be greater turnover. Seniority wouldn't be so important. Elections would be more competitive, thereby increasing voter turnout.

But what can be done? No matter what reform we might want to put into place, there is an incentive that would counter-act it.

Take term limits. If members were limited to, say, six years in the House, there's a greater risk of influence-peddling. Members will be planning for their next job, and that could mean doing favors for friends and possible employers while in office.

How about pay cuts? The base salary of members of the House and Senate is $165,200 a year. A very good salary, but anyone able to  win a Congressional seat has the savvy and skills to earn more than that in the private sector. But let's say they're overpaid, and give them less than half of their current salary, and none of the cushy pensions and benefits they receive. What would happen then? We'd see even more bribery and influence-peddling, because the salary wouldn't be enough to maintain two residences (in D.C. and in the home district) and a family.

How about campaign finance reform? Here's the problem: If one's own beliefs, the will of his district, and the interests of campaign contributors are in harmony, the campaign contributions are nonetheless seen as a corrupting influence. The onus is on the complainers that the contributions corrupt a Congressman's judgment. This can be done by establishing  his votes  a) contradict his stated beliefs, and b) are unpopular with his constituents. I doubt this "corruption" is nearly as common as is claimed; members will usually follow the will of their constituents. And even if a link was established between campaign contributions and a Congressman's changed vote, what does that prove, other than he's a bad Congressman? Does he deserve to go to jail? Do the lobbyists and special interests who supported him deserve to go to jail?    

If we go after the lobbyists and campaign contributors, we go after ourselves. For the government to know what we say, who we see, or how we spend our money, is as dangerous as the government knowing how we voted. Imagine a small grass-roots organization misconstruing the instructions for a report it must file. Should that organization be bankrupted and its leaders arrested? Should every who ever gave it $10 have to be reported to the government?

How about placing the rules on members of Congress instead? That makes more sense; if they are the ones who are "corrupted," it is they, not we the people, who should be regulated. But such regulations can only go so far. It is perhaps appropriate to ban members from accepting gifts from lobbyists. But it isn't practical to prevent members of Congress from seeing lobbyists socially; we can't track every movement of their day.

More laws and regulations will only mean lawyers will devise new ways to skirt them. Wrongdoing is hidden, not exposed, by the additional paperwork. It is the process itself that needs reform. Fortunately, members of Congress are slowly coming around. Last session, they passed a bill that creates an easily searchable website detailing every disbursement of federal funds: who receives them, for what purpose, etc. And they're negotiating an end to "earmarks" - spending projects tacked on to bills in committee. They are also considering a time delay to give members of Congress a chance to read bills before voting on them. Unfortunately, the reforms don't go as far as the Read the Bills Act, but they are steps in the right direction.

The purpose of reform shouldn't be restriction or suppression, but exposure and accountability. Activists, journalists, and other interested parties should have the opportunity find out where our money is going. They, along with members of Congress, should have the opportunity to find out what's in the bill before voting on it. Members of Congress could then be held accountable for all of their votes - they couldn't plead ignorance.

The citizen-legislator is a myth from the past. "Special interest" groups have as much right to be heard as "public interest" groups, as it is not always clear which is which. The character of politicians or the motives of lobbyists aren't the important issues. The issue is that Representatives and Senators should be held account for their actions, and the people are entitled to the tools and procedural reforms to make that possible.

Then, if they don't take advantage of such opportunities, the people couldn't blame the lobbyists or the politicians. They'd have nobody to blame but themselves.