The Jack Abramoff-Tom DeLay scandal has received no shortage of publicity.  But relatively little attention has been paid to the fact that Signatures, the swanky Pennsylvania Avenue trattoria Abramoff still co-owns, has netted at least four Republican members of Congress in what appear on their face to be violations of the congressional gift ban.

Abramoff used Signatures - best known for its presumably succulent $74 steak - to conduct his lobbying business at a corner table he kept reserved on the second floor and, it seems, to curry favors by handing out free meals to important guests. (Restaurant records show that during at 17-month period in 2002 and 2003 Signatures gave away $180,000 of food and drinks, including Abramoff's $65,000 tab.)

Last month, for instance, several news outlets obtained this e-mail (dated 5/2/02) in which Abramoff instructs his staff not charge House Majority Leader Tom DeLay:

Subject: Tom and Christine DeLay

Want to come in Thursday, May 9, 7PM. Table of 6, put it where I sit and remove that other table. Their meal is to be comped. Thanks,

Later, The New York Times obtained a list that included DeLay and seventeen other people who were not be charged for their meals, including former and current members of congress, designated either FOO-Comp, for "Friend of the Owner," or A-Comp, "Associate of the Owner."  

Former employees told the Times that while Roy Blunt (R-MO), Frank A. LoBiondo (R-NJ) and former Senators John G. Breaux, Tim Hutchinson and Don Nickles were on the comp list, they  either did not eat at the restaurant or insisted on paying when they did.  

But the same former Signatures employees describe each of  the following members as having eaten and had drinks without paying. As you'll see, most  have  tried to justify the free meals fall under the gift ban's exemption for gifts from personal friends.

*    Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) told the New York Times that he ate at Signatures "once or twice a month" on the house but said, "Just because you are a member of Congress doesn't mean you have to give up your friendships ... it was dinner with a friend and I didn't think of it as a gift."

*    Bob Ney (R-OH)'s representative said "There were times when meals and/or drinks were bought by him or for him by other members, lobbyists, or other persons, all within the limits of the gift rules." But former employees say Ney frequently ate and drank without paying while spending evenings talking with staffers and lobbyists. Signatures' records also show that the restaurant hosted a fundraiser for Ney in April 2002. According to PoliticalMoneyLine.com, neither Ney's campaign nor his PAC paid Signatures for the event.

*    John T. Doolittle (R-CA)'s spokeswoman said "To his recollection, any meal the congressman had at Signatures was either paid for personally or paid for in compliance with House rules by someone with whom the congressman was dining."

*    In addition to the apparently-unpaid-for dinner noted above, Signatures employees say Tom DeLay (R-TX) spent a lot of time in the restaurant for fundraisers and events, but rarely stayed around for the food. Delay's lawyer Richard Cullen said "Mr. DeLay has stated repeatedly that he believes he has at all times conformed with House rules and that he will cooperate fully at the appropriate time with those whose responsibility it is to review these matters, but he will not engage the press each time a political opponent feeds reporters often incomplete, irresponsible or inconsistent information. To do so would legitimize these political attacks and would be inappropriate."

In the history of the House gift rules, the profligacy of meals from lobbyists is cited as motivation for a tightening of ethics provisions:

One of the proponents of tightening the gift rule argued that the regular acceptance of meals and tickets from lobbyists was objectionable not merely because it created an appearance problem. Rather, he argued, such conduct is also objectionable because it impacts policy, albeit in a subtle and indirect way. Through such gifts, he asserted, lobbyists "are buying access, and access is power. . . . . [T]hey buy good will, even if they do not buy access directly. And good will is also power. It can mean the difference between getting your calls returned or your letter taken seriously, and that can translate to millions, even billions of dollars, at the expense of ordinary Americans who have no lobbyists to represent them."

So is it okay to get wined and dined by a lobbyist as long as you call him your friend?

The members who cited Abramoff's personal friendship should have been aware of the gift rule's explicit advice concerning personal friendships with people who make their living influencing Congress: "Quite obviously, where the offeror is a lobbyist or someone else who has interests before Congress, Members, officers and employees have the most reason to be concerned about whether a gift is offered for a reason other than personal friendship."

The rules go on to say that a good way to judge whether or not a gift should be accepted from a friend is to ask if the friend is paying it for personally or charging it to a business. The comped meals that made up 7% of Signatures' business were not coming out of Jack Abramoff's pocket.  And even true personal friends can only give up $250 of gifts without ethics committee approval. That's only three $74 steaks.