[Bumped to the top and updated twice thrice below.]

The fundraising totals are covered in another post. This “mystery debt” to Winston & Strawn needs its own space.

…the Democratic incumbent has headaches of his own, specifically a whopping $687,839 in legal fees that his spokeswoman declined to detail beyond saying that the “vast majority” goes toward “making sure we do everything right.” […]

But Blagojevich is facing other problems. He reported paying $151,816 to Winston & Strawn and owed the law firm run by former GOP Gov. Jim Thompson another $536,022. […]

Blagojevich spokeswoman Sheila Nix declined to say how much, if any, of the Winston & Strawn fees involved the investigations, saying “it’s a whole bunch of things,” including various lawsuits and “double-checking and triple-checking” fund-raising to ensure all laws are followed.

Excuse me, but that’s complete bull. Winston & Strawn charges a lot of money, but you don’t run up $722,000 in bills since December of 2005 just for “double-checking and triple-checking” fund-raising.

Turns out, the campaign had a different story for the Tribune.

A campaign spokeswoman said the debt represented charges the campaign is questioning, but she declined to say if any of the law firm’s work was related to state and federal investigations into hiring, contracting and fundraising in the administration. […]

Blagojevich campaign spokeswoman Sheila Nix declined to discuss the specific work Winston & Strawn did. Instead, she said the firm was retained to examine a variety of “systems,” including questions regarding fundraising. Still, she said, the campaign was contesting more than half a million dollars in fees the law firm billed and reported it as a debt.

Like I said in today’s Capitol Fax, a dispute over a few thousand dollars is one thing, but I cannot believe that there’s a disagreement over half million dollars in charges.

UPDATE: The plot thickens. The governor’s campaign originally reported a $687,839.59 debt to Winston & Strawn, then revised the report 14 minutes later to a $536,022 debt.

UPDATE 2: Topinka press release:

…State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka and running mate Joe Birkett, the DuPage County State’s Attorney said Blagojevich owes the people of Illinois a straight answer about the nature of the legal bills and scope of the state and federal investigations his administration is engulfed in. […]

In addition, Topinka and Birkett also demanded that Blagojevich give an accounting on how much money state government under his watch has spent in legal fees since he took office defending against the corruption charges from federal and state subpoenas.

In the seven months from December 2005 through June this year, Blagojevich’s campaign has incurred legal fees of $722,000, a rate of nearly $1.5 million per year…

I think it’s reasonable to know how much the state has spent to defend the governor and his top staff. This story deserves much more play than it’s getting. The governor’s campaign spent a fortune on legal bills and he won’t say what it was for. It’s time for a little truth.

UPDATE 3: AP finally has a story up.

Spokeswoman Sheila Nix says the legal work includes compliance with election law, defending the campaign against nuisance lawsuits and reviewing state hiring procedures.

But Nix won’t say whether it also covers criminal matters related to a federal investigation.

All reasonable explanations, except that last part. They can’t have it both ways. You can’t explain what some of the expenses are for, but refuse to say what the rest is for.

Also, the reason for the discrepancy in Update 1 could be a simple math error on the part of the campaign. That’s the way it was described and it seems rational.