Junkets and other gifts to members of Congress and their staffs have come under fresh scrutiny with the investigation and conviction of the super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. At least a half-dozen congressmen are already involved; recipients of the lavish handouts have been frantically giving their ill-gotten money to charities. Legislation is in the works to curb these excesses or at least expose them to public view.

So much for the legislative branch, but what about the federal judiciary? Even certain Supreme Court justices have been widely criticized for accepting valuable favors. Justice Antonin Scalia was criticized for his Louisiana duck-hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney when Mr. Cheney had business before the court.

But most of the Supreme Court justices accept trips, gifts and honorary club memberships and disclose them under a 1978 federal ethics law. Justice Clarence Thomas looks to be far in the lead with free items, valued at $42,000 in a six-year period. The next highest recipient was Sandra Day O’Connor, at about $6,000.

In the lower federal courts, 22 judges took trips in the single year 2002 paid for by major corporations and failed to list the trips on financial disclosure forms, according to the public interest law firm Community Rights Counsel.

Lobbying public officials for special treatment has gotten away out of hand. It gives special interests an inside track with the government. Policing it is tough enough when it concerns lawmakers. Policing the courts is even tougher, as Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., learned after he withdrew a corrective amendment five years ago and agreed to let the federal courts regulate themselves.

The Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct came up with new language that was even weaker than its earlier code. The old language said it would be improper to participate in a seminar if the sponsor or source of funding or topics covered were or might be involved in litigation. The new language said the venture would be improper only if the funding was “substantial,” the source was actually “a litigant before the judge,” and the seminar topics were “directly related” to the litigation.

So, Sen. Leahy now has introduced a bill that would prohibit what amounts to bankrolled vacations for judges while encouraging educational travel. The Fair and Independent Judiciary Act of 2006 would establish a $2 million fund to pay for travel to educational seminars. It also would require judges to maintain and make public lists of potential conflicts of interest. Both provisions would assist parties to lawsuits in determining whether to file motions for recusal.

The bill’s provisions about travel apply only to lower-court federal judges, not to the high court justices. We can hope that all members of the Supreme Court will take care that their attendance at meetings and seminars doesn’t involve them in conflicts of interest. Members of Congress could use guidance on the issue and the courts should show the way.