Rep. Paul Hodes, who was out of the blocks in a flash when Sen. Judd Gregg announced that his intention to retire in 2010, continues to make a mark in Washington. Last week, Hodes and fellow Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona sponsored a bill that would prohibit lawmakers from accepting campaign contributions from the top officials of any company that benefited from an earmark sponsored by that member of Congress during the following election cycle.

The bill isn't perfect. Its prohibitions, for now, apply only to the president, CEO, chief operating officer or chief financial officer of the earmark beneficiary. There are already, no doubt, people hard at work figuring out ways to get around the ban. House members' terms are also shorter than then the memories of earmark beneficiaries. Both sides could simply factor the new rule into their long range planning - play now, pay later. Still, the bill is a big step in the right direction, and members of Congress who vote against its passage will have some explaining to do.

No one who isn't paid to read the budget or is possessed by a passion for minutiae reads it as is. Approving some earmarks in a budget is not just in the interest of a given congressional district or state but the nation.

The byword is transparency, and in 2006 a bill cosponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama took big strides in making public the names of earmark sponsors and the recipients of earmarked federal funds. But as valuable as transparency is, it isn't enough. For it to serve as a check on Washington's you-wash-my-back-and-I'll-wash-yours culture, the public has to pay attention and then stay riled up until the next election cycle. But it's hard for voters in a district that benefit from an earmark - even if it's pure pork - to bite that hand that fed them. Instead of being voted out, even the worst offenders are rewarded with reelection.

Prowess at procuring pork is proof of power. Earmarks are a source of congressional bragging rights and candy dangled in front of voters. Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha, head of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, has been one of Congress's earmark kings. He became so brazen in his use of earmarks that he actually had campaign posters erected in Pennsylvania that boasted "P is for power."

It was PMA, a lobbying firm created by a former Murtha staffer, that renewed congressional interest in the quid pro quos between members of Congress and earmark recipients.

According to The New York Times, last year alone 104 House members funneled $300 million worth of contracts to PMA clients. Not coincidentally, many of those members were also recipients of sizeable campaign contributions from PMA. Hodes says his bill is no a direct response to PMA, but if it passes, PMA will deserve some of the credit.

It will take far more than the Hodes-Giffords bill to clean up the unsavory link between campaign contributions and legislation that benefits the contributor. Their effort is just one more attempt to chip away at an enormous barrier between the respect members of Congress want and the respect the public is willing to accord them. The proposed contribution ban isn't ideal, but it would be a step in the right direction.