If lawmakers gave the same amount of scrutiny to all legislation, as they have to ethics reform, Maine would boast the most informed, enlightened – but not necessarily efficient – representative government in all the land.

We know they cannot. Some bills, for better or for worse, are seemingly passed without second thought. Others are easy ideas turned complicated, or difficult ideas mashed into simplicity.

None, though, has run the legislative gauntlet like ethics reform, which was born from conflict (spurred by Wilton independent Rep. Tom Saviello, his employer International Paper and his position on the Legislature’s Natural Resources Committee), forged by a bipartisan task force and thrashed in the tempest of lawmaker hemming and hawing.

This has led to here, the waning days of the short session, and a complicated, critical ethics reform package tossed between the houses of the Maine Legislature. A pox on both if they fail to move this bill forward.

We recognize the difficulty of legislating gut instinct. This is ethics – intrinsic value judgments of right and wrong. It defies easy translation into statute, because its standards and threshold are perilously arbitrary.

So legislative discussion and soul-searching about ethics is not only acceptable, but encouraged. What is conflict of interest? Or undue influence? What are the pitfalls of accepting ethics complaints from citizens? What is the right dollar figure to trigger financial disclosures for lawmakers and their families?

After this long, however, the discussion has become circular. For legislation that regulates gut instinct, lawmakers must trust their guts and enact the best laws possible.

One ethics bill, sponsored by Senate President Beth Edmonds, is moving forward. It would disclose legislators’ and their close family members’ finances, real estate holdings, positions within organizations and businesses. It’s a good start.

Another bill, sponsored by House Speaker Glenn Cummings, must regain momentum. It aims to redefine conflict of interest and undue influence, open ethics complaints to citizens, cap contributions and several other provisions.

Concerns about conflict and influence are dragging the bill, which is logical, because they are shapeless and billowy topics. If given the chance, the Legislature could debate these definitions until term limits sent them all home.

There’s no need. Given the task force, and the bill’s misadventure and defeat in committee last session, enough breath has been expended on evaluating the definitions. Lawmakers should choose something workable, and stick with it.

Duty for interpreting and using the statute falls onto the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. As Maine’s court of ethics, this panel should evaluate its highs and lows. If the commission has specific recommendations for improving the statute later, members should be summoned to make them.

But first, the Legislature must enact the reforms. Finally.