IF A FEDERAL corruption sting hadn’t obliterated the remnants of the old Fat and Ugly Caucus by sending most of the remaining members to federal prison, they’d surely be the biggest supporters of an innocent-sounding bill the House is set to take up this afternoon.

In its heyday, the Fat and Ugly caucus was a raucous group of legislators known for extorting lavish meals, entertainment and cash from lobbyists. The caucus, whose back-bench members figured the only way they could cash in on their legislative seats was by banding together, billed itself as a social group.

Its primary function was to go to lunch each Thursday at the expense of its designated lobbyist of the week. Some lobbyists would tell me later that if they didn’t pay for the lunches, which could run as high as $600, the bills they were pushing would be killed. They also were expected to provide evening entertainment, and some said they were pressured into granting monetary favors for some of the caucus’ 40 members.

A 1986 Southern magazine article described the group’s “unapologetic lust” for power and noted that its members “wear their smarm on their sleeves.”

I doubt we’ll see the likes of the Fat and Uglies again in my lifetime. But their spirit lives on.

On Thursday, Rep. Jeff Duncan tried on behalf of his 27 fellow co-sponsors to rush the post-Lost Trust Fat and Ugly bill quietly through the House, by claiming it would create a sportsmen’s caucus and noting that 22 states and the Congress have such caucuses.

That explanation is so far from the truth that none of our sportsmen/legislators could hit it with the best high-powered rifle on the market.

The bill neither creates nor authorizes the creation of a sportsmen’s caucus. Mr. Duncan and the 50 other House members he says are ready to sign on could do so today, without making a single change to state law.

What the bill does is rip a hole in the anti-corruption reforms of the early ’90s, by allowing a caucus based on any “special legislative interest” to be wined and dined by special interests.

As Operation Lost Trust was unfolding, lawmakers realized that the cozy relationships that allowed legislators to feel comfortable accepting bribes from lobbyists had grown out of an all-too-loose atmosphere — exploited systematically by the Fat and Uglies — in which lobbyists were considered lawmakers’ meal tickets. So one of the first things they did was to pass the so called no-cup-of-coffee rule, which prohibited lobbyists from buying anything — even a cup of coffee — for a legislator.

But purity is admired more in theory than in practice, so the new rule had an exemption. It allowed the businesses and groups that hired lobbyists to provide entertainment, food, beverages, travel and lodging to legislators, as long as the goodies went to the entire House or Senate, a committee, a subcommittee, a county delegation or one of the caucuses listed in the law. Special interests can spend a little more than $50 per day on each legislator.

The bill Mr. Duncan is hawking adds any sort of special-interest caucus you can think of to the list. After complaints that this was asking too much, sponsors offered an amendment, which will be the first thing the House votes on today, to simply allow freebies for a new caucus that is based on “a representation of sportsmen and women desiring to enhance and protect hunting, fishing, and shooting sports.”

Rep. Vida Miller recognized what was going on last week, and she slowed down Mr. Duncan’s rush to the all-you-can-eat buffet by pointing out that the bill would allow the sportsmen’s caucus to collect and spend campaign contributions.

When she asked why the law had to be changed, Mr. Duncan, explained that “we were told that in order to have it officially organized and comply with state law we need to do this.” Well, yes, you do — if your goal is to set up a fund-raising group that can bully deep-pocketed special interests into giving you donations and paying your bar bill.

When the questioning persisted, Mr. Duncan said an official caucus could access the congressional caucus’ database of hunting-related bills.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison told me that when the bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Mike Pitts, gave him that explanation, he suggested a way to officially recognize the caucus in state law without exempting it from the no-coffee rule. That suggestion obviously fell on deaf ears.

Legislators should be insulted by the suggestion that a caucus must accept freebies from special interests in order to be allowed access to any such database.

This bill is no different from unsuccessful attempts in recent years to add a freshman caucus, a rural caucus and a military caucus to the list of groups whose members can collect $50 worth of free food and liquor every day.

The Fat and Uglies would be so proud.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.