Cold chills are undoubtedly running down the spines of many on Capitol Hill — lawmakers and staff members alike — now that lobbyist extraordinaire Jack Abramoff has pled guilty to a variety of tax and fraud charges.

The chills are the result of word that Abramoff will cooperate with authorities and tell what he knows about whom he has corrupted and how he managed to do it.

Several points must be made:

First, while Abramoff undoubtedly has a sordid tale to tell, how much credibility can it be given?

He has shown himself to be a man without scruples or ethics.

Worse, he has shown himself to be an immoral cynic with regard to the people he supposedly was helping.

He took money from various Indian tribes and then pitted their interests against each other in the halls of Congress. In e-mails, he described his clients in nasty terms as "monkeys," "morons" and "idiots" who deserved to be duped.

So, what part of what he now says is worthy of believing?

Another point is that Abramoff has given a very bad name to the legitimate business of lobbying.

There is a popular misconception that lobbying is, at best, a somewhat dubious proposition that works the shady corners of politics. That's unfair to the vast majority of ethical lobbyists who represent people, businesses or causes in an up-front manner.

Another thought is that Abramoff appeared to work his deals mostly with Republicans — a point the Democrats are gleefully quick to make. But special-interest deals are hardly the exclusive property of the GOP. It is likely that once Abramoff begins to talk, some Democratic names will occur to him.

Finally, we could do with a little less chest-beating by members of Congress. Figures like Abramoff function only in a political and ethical climate where their favors and influence are accepted.

Congress has full power to make characters like Abramoff completely impotent: It simply has to refuse to deal with them.