House Democrats have contributed nearly $40 million to the congressional campaign committee tasked with protecting the party's majority in the midterm elections in November, according to data obtained from TransparencyData.com.

The contributions from 166 members of the 253 members of the House Democratic Caucus account for 37 percent of the contributions made to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). These contributions could help to build a well-funded defensive line against the insurgent Republicans.

The DCCC has raised over $100 million this election cycle and has nearly $40 million in cash on hand, but has only spent $7 million so far on independent expenditures to protect their majority. According to a report by the Sunlight Foundation's Reporting Group, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has spent nearly double that of the DCCC so far this cycle.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer contributed the most of any member of the caucus sending $2.35 million from his campaign committee and political action committee (PAC) to the DCCC. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has sent the second most money to the DCCC with a total of $2.225 million. The third-ranking Democrat, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, is also the third-ranking giver to the DCCC with contributions totaling $2.2 million.

One hundred and eight Democrats have contributed over $100,000 to the DCCC. The biggest givers include the party leadership and major committee chairmen including Reps. Henry Waxman ($800,000), George Miller ($765,000) and Barney Frank ($600,000).

Perhaps an admission of the treacherous electoral climate ninety-seven members have not given any money to the DCCC. Nearly all Republican House members have contributed to the NRCC.

Many of these members are freshmen or sophomores elected in the 2006 and 2008 Democratic waves and are now facing a tough path to reelection. These Democrats are relying on the contributions to the DCCC by their fellow caucus members.

Some of the non-contributors will be facing little competition in November yet still have not sent campaign cash to help their party. In fact, twenty Democrats listed as not yet contributing to the DCCC are currently in races rated as "Solid Democratic" by the Cook Political Report.

Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Maxine Waters, Dan Lipinski, Carolyn McCarthy, Pete Stark, Luis Gutierrez and Corrine Brown are among those who are facing little to no opposition and have not contributed to their party's campaign committee as of the last filing period. Some of these members are sitting on cash on hand piles of at least half-a-million dollars.

The contributions to the DCCC and the lack of contributions by some members produce a dynamic that highlights some of the Democratic Party's internal ideological divisions. Many of the non-contributing members are Democrats from the moderate-to-conservative wing of the party. These are also the same members who are facing difficult reelections.

Those contributing to the party committee are more representative of the party's liberal wing including many members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. While fifty-three of eighty-two Progressive Caucus members contributed to the committee, only seventeen out of fifty-four members of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition did as well.

Over the past two years, Progressive Caucus members have voiced concerns about deals crafted to win the votes of Blue Dog Democrats and other moderate and conservative Democrats. The make-up of the caucus after November 2 could likely determine the party's ideological temperament heading into the 2012 presidential cycle.

Feature photo credit: Dominic Alves

Throughout this week and in conjunction with Earth Day, Congress is conducting a series of hearings meant to move legislation aimed at curbing global warming, Politico reports. The House Energy and Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment will tag team hearings over four days Over 54 witnesses. will be heard The House Science and Technology Committee is holding its own hearing on greenhouse gas emissions, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will deal with global climate change agreements.

All this activity indicates Congress might actually be getting serious about taking action on climate change. And last Friday’s Environmental Protection Agency announcement that greenhouse gases endanger health and human welfare only adds momentum behind congressional efforts to take action.

OpenSecrets.org has pulled together a helpful listing of resources to help us “follow the political influence” of the corporations and industries most interested in what legislation comes out of the process. Here's their list:

* Overviews of federal campaign contributions by the energy sector over time. This breaks down into contributions from electric utilities, the mining industry and oil and gas companies. Automakers and the agriculture sector, among others, will also likely want to offer input as energy-related legislation moves forward. And, of course, we can't forget the environmentalists and alternative energy producers, who now appear to have a more prominent seat at the table. * These industries also try to peddle influence by lobbying the federal government. Take a look at how much the energy sector, electric utilities, the mining industry and oil and gas companies spent on lobbying in 2008. For automakers, go here; for the agriculture sector, go here; and for environmental groups, go here. * How much have individual members of Congress received from these industries? OpenSecrets.org can show you: energy sector, electric utilities, mining industry, oil and gas companies, automakers, agriculture, environmentalists and alternative energy producers. Play around with the dropdowns and slider menu to change the timeframe or see totals to specific members of the House and Senate. * Check out which industries gave the most to members of the various 110th energy-related committees (111th coming soon) by going here and selecting any of the following: House Energy and Commerce Committee; House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee; House Science Committee; Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee; Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. * House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Chair Ed Markey (D-Mass.) penned the cap-and-trade global warming bill before their committee this week. Take a look at their individual profiles to see where these two are getting their money, here for Waxman and here for Markey. * For a look at how the various industries tried to influence energy-related legislation in the past, take a peek at Capital Eye's 2008 Power Struggle series and 2007 Power Play series.

TPMtv has an interview up with Oscar winning director Alex Gibney about his new documentary "Casino Jack and the United States of Money." The movie documents the exploits of Jack Abramoff and the free flow of money around Capitol Hill. "Casino Jack" won't be out until 2009:

In other Abramoff-related news, Rep. Henry Waxman held a press call today to discuss new McCain fundraiser Ralph Reed's involvement in Abramoff's "Gimme Five" schemes. Despite a trail of e-mail's showing Reed's knowledge of the nature of Abramoff's lobbying game Reed continues to claim ignorance of the illegalities and double-crossing of Indian tribes . Waxman used his press call to remind everyone of the e-mails and of Reed's culpability. You can read a summary of the call at Majikthise.

Last month, I blogged about the Center for Public Integrity's brilliant expose' "Shadow Government," dealing with federal advisory committees, the secret, multi-layered and unaccountable bureaucracy that influences much of the federal government with precious little oversight and largely no record of their activities. There are over 900 committees, boards, commissions, councils and panels that advise the various agencies of the Executive Branch and the White House, meant to offer government expert opinions on various topics.

To recap, the Center's investigation found:

• committees packed with industry representatives;

• members are added or removed for political reasons;

• subcommittees and working groups are created allowing decisions to be made behind closed doors; and

-         records are sealed if they exist at all.

Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News blog reports that, on Wednesday, the House passed a bill that would amend the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA).  The new reform is meant to strengthen the public disclosure provisions of FACA, which was itself a reform devised to bring more openness to the advisory committee process.

Aftergood quotes Rep. Henry Waxman, one of the bills sponsors, as saying the purpose of the bill is to put an end to White House task forces operating in total secrecy.  If passed, the bill will require the White House "...disclose whom they meet with and what recommendations they receive from special interests," Waxman said.  Specifically, "This bill says that task forces like the Vice President's energy task force must come out from the shadows." We'll keep an eye on this important piece of reform legislation as it heads over to the Senate.