Chris Cannon is wrong.

Chris Cannon is so wrong that he sounds as though he is willfully blind to his ethical dilemma. We believe, however, that the voters of Utah's 3rd Congressional District are not so blind and, if asked, would hold their elected representative to a higher standard.

Chris Cannon says that he knows many lobbyists, and that he sees Joe as a lobbyist rather than as his brother. He seems to be implying that he treats his brother and his brother's clients as he would any other lobbyist and the lobbyist's clients.

That is hard to believe. It is much more difficult to say no to your brother than to a mere friend or acquaintance, much less a stranger. That is Chris Cannon's ethical dilemma.

Anyone made aware of the fact that in the last year Chris Cannon has worked on behalf of the interests of three of Joe's clients would sense that ethical dilemma instantly. That means that, at the very least, Chris has the problem of appearing to carry water for Joe's clients because of their sibling relationship.

It is not against the law for relatives to lobby members of Congress. But House rules require members to avoid giving special favors to family members or creating the appearance of conflicts of interest. Chris Cannon has failed on both counts.

Many members of Congress face ethical entanglements because their spouses, children, siblings or other family members work as lobbyists. Chris Cannon says that if his wife were a lobbyist, he would prohibit her from jawboning members of his staff on behalf of her clients. Oddly, he does not apply the same standard to his brother. He should.

Joe Cannon is not only a lobbyist but he is a former U.S. Senate candidate in Utah and is the current chairman of the state Republican Party. Joe also is indebted to Chris for $250,000 left over from his Senate campaign more than a decade ago.

Chris should keep Joe's lobbying clients at arm's length. If not farther.