Ethics is the fool’s gold of the 2006 campaign. It’s the desert mirage. It’s the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

And everyone’s falling for it — from the candidates to the pundits and, possibly, the voters.

Listening to the conventional wisdom one would think that after the fall of Congressman Duke Cunningham and the Jack Abramoff scandal, we’re about to see a revolution — of voters about to switch parties and demanding ethics reform.

Funny how conventional wisdom is so often off the mark.

Campaigning on ethics is too easy — especially in the special election for California’s 50th Congressional District. Sure, it’s mildly entertaining to know that Richard Earnest has about $55,000 in his checking account, according to his recent voluntary disclosure. But where does Earnest, or the other 20-plus candidates running to fill Duke’s seat, stand on the issues? What are they going to do for me?

That’s what people gauge when they pick a congressman, and as voters we should expect the candidates to move beyond bellowing about ethics and other easy topics.

Saying “I’m for ethics reform,” or “I will come out strong on illegal immigration,” or “I can’t be bought,” is like saying, “I support education” and “I like to breathe oxygen.” Give us voters a break.

Watching two dozen wannabe politicians stumble over themselves to prove their integrity gives voters nothing as they weigh who should be our next representative.

We’ve heard it all before. We’ve been promised “the most ethical administration in American history” (Bill Clinton) and been given a pledge to “restore integrity to the White House” (George W. Bush). What did those guarantees get us?

Of course the folks running to fill scumbag Cunningham’s seat are going to declare their honesty. That’s a given. We expect our elected officials to be honest.

Duke’s and Abramoff’s problem was not a lack of lobbying regulations or ethics rules. They broke the law. Cunningham’s a crook, and adding more rules, penalties and measuring sticks wouldn’t have stopped him from disgracing himself, our district and Congress.

Sure, we can follow the ethics gravy train to the finish. But reactionary politics doesn’t solve problems. The U.S. created the Department of Homeland Security in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, even though we already had a Defense Department. Ask the former residents of New Orleans how that one worked out.

And let’s not forget the campaign finance reforms pushed by Keating Five member John McCain and his buddy Russ Feingold. Moveon.org and the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth loved it, but did they really give American’s more honest political campaigns?

We’ve got to stop allowing lawmakers to enact reforms for the sake of doing something.

Voters in the 50th District should demand that the candidates campaign and debate the real issues affecting San Diego’s mid and North County. Voters need to know which candidate is going to have what Abramoff would call the “juice” to address our issues here at home.

As we sit in some of the worst traffic in the country, we should be asking which candidate is going to squeeze the most dollars out of Washington for our freeways — earmarks or not.

We should know how they plan to convince the military to give up some land at Miramar for our new airport when voters pick that as the preferred site in November (and they will).

We should be asking them how they feel about protecting the tremendous natural resource that is our beaches and whether they support the Army Corps of Engineers’ plan to build seawalls along bluffs in Solana Beach and Encinitas.

The candidates need to stop wasting time proclaiming their moral fiber and tell us what they will do to ease the burden of federal mandates on our cities. They need to clue us in on their thoughts on a bloated housing market that’s showing signs of leveling off and possibly dropping.

When we get duped by the fool’s gold of 2006, the candidates for the 50th seat get a pass. They can placate us with a few sound bites about restoring integrity to Congress while avoiding taking a stance on the issues that matter to the district’s voters.

The candidate that gives a real — and not easy — campaign will get our attention and our votes. Let’s not fall for the mirage.