Corporate lobbyists and government watchdog groups are rarely on the same side of any money-and-ethics issue in this town, generally being more accustomed to sending out dueling press releases than joint proclamations. But a group of leaders from the rival camps came together Tuesday to seek a reworking of the rules governing congressional earmarks in an effort to remove the taint of corruption that surrounds billions in congressional set-asides for favored projects. The plan, which the lobbyists and watchdog groups have been presenting to congressional staff members in recent closed-door meetings, would limit the contributions that lawmakers can take from the beneficiaries of earmarks they arrange. Top officials from companies getting earmarks would be limited to donating $5,000 to lawmakers in each two-year election cycle, and they would not be allowed to give at all while seeking an earmark. In addition, legislative staff working on earmarks would be banned from participating in campaign fundraising -- a practice that drew sharp criticism in a recent investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics involving earmarks. And to promote transparency, Congress would be required to disclose all earmarks on a central database, submit to audits by the Government Accountability Office and certify that the contractors are qualified to do the work. 'The way the process is currently working, it really is broken,' said Rich Gold, a lobbyist for the firm of Holland & Knight, which does earmark work for corporate clients. Gold and other leading lobbyists teamed with a handful of watchdog organizations -- including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense and Public Citizen -- to develop the plan. Earmarks allow individual lawmakers to seek financing for projects they consider important, usually in their own districts. One tally shows more than $30 billion in earmarks awarded in the last two decades. Some, like Alaska's 'Bridge to Nowhere' several years ago, become notorious as examples of waste and cronyism. After waves of negative publicity, lawmakers have taken steps to rein in abuses. But the results have been inconsistent, with some House Republicans pledging earlier this year to swear off all earmarks temporarily, House Democrats pledging to ban earmarks only to commercial businesses, and the Senate taking no action at all. Some House members are relying on Senate colleagues to put in earmark requests, and some companies are working through nonprofits to repackage requests. Ellis Brachman, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said officials there had not reviewed the latest proposal. Asked if more restrictions were needed, he said, 'We've enacted major reforms to the earmark process, which speaks for itself.' The coalition's plan would go further than what Congress has done by banning people closely affiliated with companies seeking earmarks from donating any money to lawmakers during the open season on earmarks, which can last for months as spending bills are prepared. While no members of Congress have yet committed to supporting the plan, coalition members said the unusual nature of their group -- representing both consumer gadflies and corporate lobbyists -- would give the plan added momentum. 'The sheer diversity of this coalition,' said Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen, 'has really given these proposals their own legs.' Gold and Melanie Sloan, who leads the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, consulted this summer and sought out colleagues who might join their campaign. Among the lobbyists who signed on were James T. Walsh, a former Republican congressman from New York who works at K&L Gates and represents the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmentalists; Emanuel L. Rouvelas, another prominent lobbyist at K&L Gates who lobbies for Berkshire Hathaway, Pitney Bowes and other major firms; and David Wenhold, who is president of the American League of Lobbyists. Gold said in an interview that congressional aides have asked incredulously: 'Now, who are you doing this with again? And how did this happen?' He said he already received some criticism from fellow lobbyists. 'I'm wearing a flak jacket today' to withstand the attacks, he said, 'but to be honest, so are the good government groups from their own supporters. We are strange bedfellows.' Others said they thought the plan was an important step toward winning public confidence. 'I think this has a serious chance of going somewhere,' said Michael Herson, who runs American Defense International, a Washington lobbying firm, but was not involved in the development of the coalition's proposal. 'This can eliminate a lot of fear and rhetoric from the process because, right now, a lot of people who work in earmarks are afraid to even do the right thing because they might be attacked,' Herson said. 'If we all agree on the rules of the road, it makes life easier for everyone.' 