Last week, Rep. Phil Riesen, D-Holladay, signed an ethics complaint alleging Hughes tried to bribe at least one colleague into voting for the private-school voucher bill, shook down lobbyists and misused state resources. So Hughes responded with his own complaint alleging Riesen was peddling false information to the media.

But first, the hotheaded Republican from Draper charged down to the Capitol to challenge his accuser. The House speaker's chief of staff intercepted Hughes in an underground parking garage last week - trying to save Hughes from himself.

He has been getting the benefit of the doubt from reporters who treat the dueling complaints and the underground scuffle in classic he-said-she-said fashion and raise the obvious questions about timing an "October surprise."

But something else is getting lost in this tit-for-tat: Not all ethics complaints are created equal. And it seems unethical to use a bogus ethics complaint to squash another with substance to it.

Alan Smith, the attorney who helped write the complaint against Hughes, says the dueling charges are different in scope and motivation. Hughes' attempt at damage control is "like the federal prosecutor who charges the Gambinos with extortion. And then the godfather of the family turns around and accuses the prosecutor of not paying a parking ticket. Phil didn't park his car in the wrong place."

Riesen calls Hughes' jab a "sideshow." But it has become a full-blown partisan bout, a sort of locker-room hazing ritual discovered and then half-heartedly squelched by an aggressive coach, Speaker Greg Curtis.

While most lawmakers question the timing of Riesen's complaint, they also acknowledge a problem on Capitol Hill.

Under Utah's laissez-faire campaign-disclosure and finance laws, lawmakers routinely skirt the bounds of good taste and common sense, accepting not only generous campaign donations, but Jazz tickets, rounds of golf and junkets from lobbyists.

"We need more guidelines," says Logan Republican Sen. Lyle Hillyard.

For proof, look at the House. Several members have been brought down low this year:

In the Republican state treasurer's race, former Rep. Mark Walker apparently offered challenger Richard Ellis a job if he would drop out of the race. Walker ended up dropping out to avoid his own ethics hearing.

Behind the scenes, Hughes pushed for an ethics review of West Jordan Republican Rep. Steve Mascaro, alleging sexual harassment. No complaint was ever filed.

Now, Hughes finds himself the subject of an investigation.

State senators are sitting back and watching the House disintegrate. It's not that the Senate is free of corruption - a year ago there was talk of investigating Majority Leader Curt Bramble's use of students at Mountainland Applied Technology College and funding for a Republican parade float.

But the younger, larger House is more disposed to this kind of upheaval. Curtis' hyper-partisan gamesmanship and get-mine lawmaking strategy can't be discounted.

He led by example, allowing tension to build between moderate and conservative factions within the House. Meantime, superlobbyists sprinkled money on legislators, upping the temptation to take all that was offered. Finally, Hughes' overweening advocacy for the controversial voucher bill rubbed many representatives the wrong way.

And now it's one big bile soup.

University of Utah political science professor Dan Levin says the partisanship interwoven in this ethics debate - and the looming prospect of retribution - does not bode well for the process.

"If you want people to take ethics seriously, you have to remove some of the partisan overlay," Levin says. "This is an area where partisan politics should not play too large a role. I fear for an ethics process as soon as it becomes a political instrument."

Too late.

I don't expect any of the ethics charges to stick; they rarely do to politicians in this state.

I'm just wondering how they'll all be able to work together again come January.

walsh@sltrib.com