Long before Jack Abramoff, it was a dirty secret in Washington that lobbyists have given cushy jobs to relatives of members of Congress. But it is also the reality of today’s two-career-couple world that high-powered Hill people on the inside often have a spouse on the outside. Dealing with this issue is a necessary part of lobbying reform, but one that also requires sensitivity.

The Abramoff scandal highlighted the worst abuses of familial favoritism. It is alleged that Abramoff and his affiliates hired the spouses of several members of Congress and important staffers as the quid in return for some serious quo. Further, some have claimed that these spouses were doing little for their pay. If true, these actions will further damage those caught in Abramoff’s web.

But a different issue was raised last week in an allegation made against a staffer of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and that staffer’s husband. The staffer had been involved in appropriations, and Specter, a member of the Appropriations Committee, inserted millions of dollars for projects that benefited her husband’s clients.

The issue raised here is of conflict of interest. If lobbyists are advocating for a private interest directly before a well placed spouse or relative, the public should legitimately wonder whose interest is being served.

In some of the most prominent cases, the relatives of powerful lawmakers have voluntarily sworn off lobbying their kin. As reported in The New York Times, Linda Daschle refrained not only from lobbying her husband, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), but the whole Senate as well. The sons of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and House Speaker Denny Hastert (R-Ill.) stated that they would not directly lobby their dads.

And in response to the allegations, Specter’s office has made the case that the lobbyist never directly advocated before the office (although his firm may have) and that any appropriations project would be reviewed by the chief of staff or legislative director and could not just be slipped through surreptitiously. If this is all there is to the Specter story, then it will not have legs.

A thorough review by higher-ups is essential to any office, but anyone who has watched Congress knows that there are offices where the chief of staff, legislative director and staff are directly lobbied by their spouses. Think of the consequences of a husband of a chief of staff lobbying the staff that reports to his wife. What legislative assistants in their right minds would question the boss’s spouse? Think of how badly members are served by this practice, when a top aide gives advice that is less about the public good than lining his own family’s pockets.

The ease with which some dismiss these conflicts of interest can be seen in the announcements of lobbying positions made in Washington papers. There, a lobbyist is often prominently described as the husband or wife of an important staffer, as if to advertise to clients that the path to influencing legislation runs through the bedroom of a top aide.

Despite all of these problems, it would be wrong and impractical to prevent accomplished family members from pursuing their livelihood as lobbyists. The key is to set up appropriate firewalls. Lobbyists should have to disclose publicly relatives who are on the public payroll. And lobbyists should not directly lobby relatives or the staffs that work for them.

We can’t police the pillow talk of public servants and their partners, but we can insist on full disclosure of familial relationships and limitations on lobbying contacts with relatives. It is not the only reform that we need to make, but it is a start.

John C. Fortier is a research fellow at AEI.