For a brief, shining moment, it looked like the Utah State Legislature was finally going to clean up its act.

The House passed House Bill 101, which would lower the reporting threshold for gifts to legislators and officials from $50 to $5 a day. While it did not impose a total ban on gifts, the measure would have brought transparency to the relationship between legislators and lobbyists trying to sway their votes.

For the House, it was a giant leap forward. In the past, ethics reform bills have died in committee or on the House floor. Finally, it seemed, somebody on Capitol Hill understood that taking expensive gifts undermines the Legislature's integrity.

Unfortunately, the reform movement has not caught on in the Senate.

When HB 101, which was originally sponsored by House Majority Leader Jeff Alexander, was presented to a Senate committee, senators saw it as an attack on their integrity, and promptly watered it down to uselessness. The Senate also struck down a similar bill by Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights.

Sen. Howard A. Stephenson, R-Draper, had the chutzpah to suggest that gifts were an appropriate compensation for the "sacrifices" that lawmakers make to serve.

"I look at legislators who especially can't drive home at night because of the distance or because of their duties that keep them late at night here," Stephenson said. "And I think here they are, stuck in a motel room and what are they supposed to do, play solitaire? ... I think it's just fine that somebody go to a Jazz game to spend some of those empty evenings away from their family. I think it's just fine that they are able to go to dinner to talk with people who are interested in sharing ideas with them."

He said the ethics issue was a creation of an unethical media seeking to destroy legislators' integrity for the sake of selling newspapers. Of course, Stephenson is a paragon of ethics, being both a senator and a lobbyist for the Utah Taxpayers Association. (That ought to be outlawed as well.)

Stephenson initially amended the bill to raise the trigger for reporting to $100, twice what it is now. He later lowered it back to the current $50, but added a provision to index that amount for inflation.

The bill in its current form does nothing. The status quo is retained and the Legislature's credibility continues to erode like a California hillside under heavy spring rain.

Stephenson's arguments about entitlement illustrate perfectly why gifts are a problem on Capitol Hill. The men and women who serve in the Legislature should be doing it because they want to serve the public. Service usually requires some sacrifice.

Lobbyists usually do not give legislators gifts just because they have pity for a senator or representative's plight or want to show gratitude for these public servants. Lobbyists do it to gain access and to secure support for their pet projects.

If gifts have no influence on votes, why should legislators be reluctant about disclosing them? The fact that they are squeamish about doing it suggests something is not right.

Alexander's measure would not have stopped Stephenson or any legislator from accepting a gift. It would have meant only that their names would be listed among those who accepted something more substantial than a gewgaw. The lawmakers thus named would then have to explain to their constituents how the gift had no effect on how they represented the public while on Capitol Hill. It would also allow people to see which legislators are willing to make sacrifices for the people of Utah and which insist on being compensated under the table.

If any legislator thinks the sacrifice of serving in the Legislature is so great that he is entitled to Jazz tickets and expensive dinners to make up for it, he should step down and let a genuine public servant take over.

Sen. Stephenson, you go first.