Lobbying reform emerged with the promise of spring, stalled before summer and seems now to be one of those things Congress would rather not discuss. A last-minute attempt in the Senate to rescue a piece of the reform by matching House provisions on earmarks looks similarly doomed.

Last week, the House passed a bill creating an on-line listing for earmarks – money set aside in an appropriation account usually by a single lawmaker with his or her home state, local university or perhaps a generous donor, in mind. The Senate has two weeks left to act similarly, and in the unlikely event that occurs, it would be one of the few reforms to emerge from the Jack Abramoff scandal, which produced reform proposals in both houses of Congress that have not been reconciled and are not expected to be this year.

Earmarks make up a tiny (though growing) fraction of the budget, but they are important because the lack of oversight for them allows members of Congress to steer money in unethical or illegal ways. Just as the House was passing its version of earmark reform, Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio was pleading guilty to accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for helping Mr. Abramoff’s clients.

An electronic list of earmarks, with full disclosure of the earmark’s sponsor, would at least make that sort of quid pro quo more difficult, and it would more easily highlight the recipients of the nation’s tax dollars. The Senate version, according to Roll Call, is up to the rules and administration chairman and ranking member, Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

Whether the Senate considers it in September or, perhaps, during a lame-duck session in November, the earmark bill will mark the end of a disappointing episode. The earlier House and Senate versions of reform were killed together when Senate leaders of both parties appointed a conference committee that had no interest in reconciling even the feeble versions before it. Reformers such as Sens. Susan Collins and Joseph Lieberman, who wrote tougher reforms in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, were not among those named.

The result, despite the scandals, the harm to the reputation of Congress, the waste of tax dollars, is that the minor reform that remains might not even make it. That’s a clear victory for lobbyists, a clear loss for the public.