That proposal, which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday, would be the most far-reaching of the year’s rule changes. But many lawmakers dislike the idea because the ability to call on lobbyists for fund-raising is a major advantage of incumbency.

Others say they do not see the point of doing more. “I didn’t make any of those campaign promises,” said Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat who questions the bundling disclosure proposal and also opposed the extension of the so-called “revolving door” ban on lobbying by former members.

“I made a career change 20 years ago to be a full-time elected official,” Mr. Capuano said, explaining his position. “I am no longer qualified to be a tax attorney. It is like saying to people, ‘Please, come into public service, give it your all, and when you are done you are completely unqualified for anything else.’ ”

Others grumbled that Mr. Van Hollen, whose Democratic campaign committee duns each member for contributions, was pushing a measure that would make it harder to tap the easiest sources of such money  lobbyists.

“We have dues that we are supposed to raise of several hundred thousand dollars, and in the same breath we are informed that this is something we will have to vote for,” Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, said. “I don’t know what we are supposed to do, except cold call all the people in the phone book in our districts.”

Mr. Moran expects to vote for the disclosure rule because, he said, after his party campaigned on ethics reform “we have to be holier than Caesar’s wife.”

Republicans cited the accusations against Mr. Murtha as evidence that the Democrats were already in breach of their own earmarks rules.