From the Center for Responsive Politics:

In the contests for Congress, 1st Quarter fundraising totals for some congressional candidates -- many of them incumbent senators -- still haven't come out electronically from the FEC. (Senators insist on filing their reports on paper even though everyone else files electronically, so this usually explains the delay in getting electronic information -- it has to be keyed in at your expense, taxpayer.)

OpenSecrets.org will update their congressional profiles as the data becomes available. Expect deeper analysis next month.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by Rep. Jim McDermott of a ruling that he acted improperly by passing on to reporters a recording of a 1996 telephone call where Republican leaders talked strategy in regard to the ethics case pending against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). This week's decision also leaves standing a previous court ruling saying that McDermott would have to pay $60,000 in damages and $800,000 in legal bills to now House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who had sued the Washington Democrat in 1998.

The question is, how is McDermott going to pay? CQ looked into whether he can use a legal-defense fund to help pay Boehner and it seems possible. It turns out that McDermott is one of six House members who maintain active legal defense funds, reporting contributions this year. CQ says that the rise in these separate accounts funds is a result of an increase in Justice Department and Federal Election Commission investigations.

Going on eight months now the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, requiring senators to file their campaign finance reports electronically, has been held up by proceedural maneuvers from the Republican side. After a series of secret holds placed on the bill were thwarted once secret holds were banned (Senators with secret holds must reveal their identity after 72 hours) Sen. John Ensign blocked the bill by offering a poison pill amendment that lacked relevance to the bill. Ensign's amendment, revealed on this blog to have originated from the offices of Mitch McConnell, requires outside organizations filing ethics complaints to reveal their donor list. For months now, this irrelevant, poison pill amendment has blocked a simple change in how Senators file their campaign finance reports that would help make the data more readily accessible to the voting public. Now a coalition of groups, including a number of conservative groups, has formed to ask Ensign to drop his amendment and allow the electronic filing bill to pass. The groups include:

Alliance for Justice
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
The American Conservative Union
James Bopp Jr., General Counsel James Madison Center for Free Speech
Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest
The Free Speech Coalition
Gun Owners of America,
National Center for Public Policy Research
OMB Watch

The full letter is after the jump.

Who knew a little bill requiring senators to file their campaign finance reports electronically could cause such a problem on Capitol Hill? Today, Senate Republicans under the stewardship of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tried their hand at a parliamentary trick to add poison pill amendments to S. 223. When Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to move S. 1, the Senate' lobbying reform package, to conference committee Sen. Bob Bennett attempted to add S. 223 while reserving the right to add another amendment. Bennett likely wanted to slip in the same amendment that he tried to add to S.223 when it was in committee. That amendment would allow party committees, like the RNC or the DSCC, to coordinate campaign activities with candidate committees. Bennett's amendment is widely opposed by the majority Democrats and would not only make S. 223's passage impossible in conference or in the House of Representatives, but would endanger the entire lobbying and ethics reform package. Reid scuttled this parliamentary trickery by objecting to Bennett's proposition. The Senate went into convulsions and recessed without advancing S. 1 to conference committee. (There are some conflicting accounts of exactly how this proceeded.))

Since the Senate minority is upping the ante with procedural tricks, the Sunlight Foundation has decided to up the ante on Mitch McConnell. Today, Sunlight announced the extension of the deadline for our campaign to get Mitch McConnell on the record responding to questions about the continued blocking of S. 223. Not only is the deadline extended but the prize money is doubled. You will now receive $1,000 if you are the first to submit a video of McConnell responding to questions about the bill. Check out What's McConnell Hiding? for more details.

  Today, the Sunlight Foundation launched a new campaign to reveal which senator is blocking passage of the Senate Campaign Disparity Act (S. 223). If you’ve been following this story here you know that twice this bill - which would require senators to file their campaign finance reports electronically - has been blocked by an anonymous Republican senator who is being hidden by Sen. Mitch McConnell. In his home state of Kentucky we are launching a billboard and a Web site to force McConnell to reveal the name of the anonymous senator. The Louisville Courier-Journal and the Politico have already picked up the story. Check out What’s McConnell Hiding? for more details or continue reading below the fold. We have a number of ways for you to get involved.

On Monday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to help her pass S.223, the Senate campaign finance electronic filing bill. McConnell has been abetting a Republican objection to the bill by refusing to reveal information about who in his party does not approve of this no-brainer legislation. While McConnell states that Republican Senators want to offer amendments to the bill he also refuses to identify and describe these amendments. Feinstein is committed to passing this bill and McConnell has said that he supports it. McConnell must meet with Sen. Feinstein to work together to pass this bill without poison pill amendments. Feinstein's letter asks for McConnell to identify to her the amendments that Republican Senators wish to offer. If they have the kind of support that S.223 has than they could be added. If they are controversial, they should go through the regular committee process. This is very simple and fair. Read the letter:

The Sunlight Foundation and nearly a dozen other groups today sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to urge her to add to the upcoming lobbying reform legislation a provision that would require members to electronically file their personal financial disclosure forms.  These reports provide detailed information on each members' personal financial assets, and are critical to the public's understanding of whether their representative's private interests might conflict with his or her public duties as a lawmaker. Congress, which has required electronic filing of reports by lobbyists, campaign committees and 527 organizations, has failed to make personal financial disclosure reports available on the Internet-even in PDF format. Instead, the reports and the information contained in them are buried in the basement office of the House Clerk.

The House Ethics Manual states that "...public disclosure of assets, financial interests, and investments has been required as the preferred method of regulating possible conflicts of interest of Members of the House and certain congressional staff. Public disclosure is intended to provide the information necessary to allow Members' constituencies to judge their official conduct in light of possible financial conflicts with private holdings."

The Winston-Salem Journal stands up for openness while Sen. Mitch McConnell and Republican Senators, including the two North Carolina Senators Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, continue to block S.223 from passing in a clean, amendment-free fashion. McConnell and a few Republican Senators want to amend the bill to prevent its passage. The Winston-Salem Journal write that the objecting Senator, or Senators, should go "public with his or her objections." What McConnell and his cohort need to understand is that objecting to a bill may be a Senate tradition, "But to do so anonymously is cowardly, and to do so while professing not to be the blocker is deceitful." Tell Mitch McConnell - (202) 224-2541 - to release the names of the objectors and to make any and all amendments available to the public now.

Three editorial boards let loose today on Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and the Senate Republican Caucus for blocking the "no-brainer" legislation to require Senator's to electronically file their campaign finance reports. The Lexington Herald-Leader wrote that the Republican block is "but another of those too-clever maneuvers that serve only to undermine public support for Congress." The Baltimore Sun excoriates the entire Senate for failing to pass this simple measure. But the real gem comes in Roll Call's editorial, wherein we learn that, "McConnell told Roll Call that 'a couple of people on my side want to offer an amendment'". If there was ever doubt that this was not an attempt to kill the bill with "poison pill" amendments it ought to have just slithered out of the room. If the Republicans want to have a debate why not make their amendments public and see if they can't reach a deal as Sen. Bennett did when he attempted to attach a controversial amendment to the bill. Call Mitch McConnell - (202) 224-2541 - and let him know you don't appreciate his delaying and blocking techniques. Tell him to release the names of the objecting Senators and to release the details of the amendments he wants to add. Use this comment form to tell us what he says.

Today the Louisville Courier-Journal joins our call for Sen. Mitch McConnell to release the name of the anonymous Senator blocking the passage of S.223. McConnell needs to give the name up and let the bill pass. He has made electronic filing into a partisan issue for no reason except to continue the status quo of wasted tax dollars and hidden campaign contributions. The Courier-Journal calls McConnell out on his dismissal of transparency:

This great defender of dollar-driven politics -- Washington's self-identified champion of money as the constitutional equivalent of speech -- has always insisted the answer is not less cash in campaigns but more transparency. Trust the voters to figure out who is scratching whose back, he says, by making sure they can find out who is giving what to whom.

What's clear, once again, is that Sen. McConnell says one thing and does another. He makes not only Kentucky but the Senate itself look bad.

You can continue to help find the identity of the anonymous Senator here.