For the latest proof of the importance of money in politics, look no further than the Wednesday decision by Bob Kerrey to make a comeback bid for his old Senate seat and the excitement it is generating.

Never mind that Nebraska's one-time Democratic governor and senator has spent the last decade living in New York City's legendarily hip Greenwich Village. Never mind that he had to use his sister's address to register to vote in the state where he was born. Never mind that he hasn't been on a ballot since 1994 and will have to reintroduce himself to a new generation of Nebraskans.

He should have plenty of dough to help him do so. The one constant throughout the brainy, mercurial Kerrey's career has been his track record as a money magnet.

Sunlight's Influence Explorer shows that Kerrey raised nearly $10 million during the 12 years he was in the Senate. That's on top of the $681,000 that records on file with Nebraska's Accountability and Disclosure office show he raised for his first race, a successful 1982 campaign for governor. As chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 1995-96, Kerrey helped rake in another $33 million for his party.

Nor did his fundraising prowess end with his political career: The New School of Social Research, which Kerrey headed from 2001 until last year, credits him with raising more than $110 million to spark a major expansion of the Manhattan-based university. Benefactors included such bold-faced names as fashion designers Donna Karan and Diane von Furstenburg and media mogul Barry Diller. Influence Explorer also shows the New School's sophistication in the ways of Washington: The university has spent nearly $4 million lobbying, and has been rewarded with some $22 million in federal grants and contracts.

Like former Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and current Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., before him, Kerrey is demonstrating the power of a proven fundraiser to displace the ambitions of lesser-known locals.

"I gave up my seat on the University of Nebraska Board of Regents based on his word," Chuck Hasselbrook, a Democrat who says he entered the Senate race only after Kerrey assured him he wouldn't, told the Christian Science Monitor.

The Nebraska race is likely to be hard-fought and expensive, and it could be key to determining whether Democrats manage to maintain control of the Senate, where they now hold a 53-47 vote edge (a margin that includes two independents, Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, and Vermont's Bernie Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats). It's not unheard-of in such circumstances for parties to turn to a familiar face with a proven track record of bringing in the bucks. In 2000, when Democratic leaders worried that then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would enter the race for the seat of retiring Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N,Y., Rep. Nita Lowey, a veteran Democrat from the New York City suburbs, had to give up her hopes of moving to the other side of the Capitol in favor of Clinton. The then-first lady ran her campaign for New York's Senate seat from the White House. And in 2010, when the retirement of Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., opened up an opportunity for Republicans, party leaders recruited Coats, who served in the Senate during the 1990s, over a former GOP congressman and state senator who also wanted the nomination.

Kerrey, 68, is a former Navy Seal who walks -- and sometimes jogs -- on a prosthesis, the result of losing part of his right leg to a grenade attack in Vietnam. His his war record came under a cloud, however, in 2001 when he acknowledged participating in an attack where Vietnamese civilians, many of them women and children, were killed. First elected to the Senate in 1988, Kerrey four years later launched a campaign for president. He lost the Democratic nomination to Bill Clinton in a campaign not marked by good feelings. Kerrey famously called the future president "an unusually good liar." Back in the Senate, where he won a second term in 1994, he was an early advocate for health care reform and Social Security reform. In 2000, he abruptly announced that he would not seek a third term and moved to New York to head the New School. In 2005, he briefly considered challenging Michael Bloomberg for New York City mayor.

The 2006 race for the seat that Kerrey is now seeking cost $20 million -- a figure driven up by the personal funds poured into the race by millionaire Republican candidate Pete Ricketts. Democratic incumbent Ben Nelson won, despite being outspent nearly two-to-one -- a sign that while money talks, it can only walk you so far.

(Keenan Steiner contributed reporting for this post)

From a speech she gave yesterday on Internet freedom (transcript) (video):

Let’s say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency and also to ferret out and report corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy.

If people took advantage of this tool, it would help us target our foreign assistance spending, improve lives, and encourage foreign investment in countries with responsible governments. However, right now, mobile application developers have no financial assistance to pursue that project on their own, and the State Department currently lacks a mechanism to make it happen. But this initiative should help resolve that problem and provide long-term dividends from modest investments in innovation. We’re going to work with experts to find the best structure for this venture, and we’ll need the talent and resources of technology companies and nonprofits in order to get the best results most quickly. So for those of you in the room who have this kind of talent, expertise, please consider yourselves invited to help us.

In the meantime, there are companies, individuals, and institutions working on ideas and applications that could already advance our diplomatic and development objectives. And the State Department will be launching an innovation competition to give this work an immediate boost. We’ll be asking Americans to send us their best ideas for applications and technologies that help break down language barriers, overcome illiteracy, connect people to the services and information they need. Microsoft, for example, has already developed a prototype for a digital doctor that could help provide medical care in isolated rural communities. We want to see more ideas like that. And we’ll work with the winners of the competition and provide grants to help build their ideas to scale.

Bill Allison and Larry Makinson of Sunlight created a DabbleDB database of the Clinton Foundation donor list released yesterday. This database is the place to go if you're interested in pouring through this data without trying to access the constantly crashing - thanks to the journalist/blogger stampede - Clinton Foundation web site. (It's as though journalists and bloggers have this obsession with the Clintons. Who knew?) And just to make sure we cover all our bases, here's a quote from Bill (emphasis mine):

I should also note that disclosing this information isn’t required by any law (but should be); the Obama transition and the Clintons themselves deserve some marks for releasing the information. But all these donations to presidential foundations–for Bushes as well as Clinton (and Carter) should be publicly disclosed.

The most recent rumor regarding the replacement for Sen. Hillary Clinton is that Obama friend and only surviving child of President John F. Kennedy Caroline Kennedy is under consideration by Gov. David Paterson. Caroline Kennedy is close to President-Elect Barack Obama and helped run his Vice Presidential search committee along with Eric Holder, who has since been tapped to be the next Attorney General. Kennedy also holds numerous positions related to both politics and her father's legacy. The quick list of her current positions is as follows:

• Director on the Commission on Presidential Debates
• Director on the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
• President of the Kennedy Library Foundation
• Founder of the Profiles in Courage Award
• Honorary Chairman of the American Ballet Theatre
• Adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics

Kennedy previously worked as the chief executive for the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education from 2002-2004. She is also an author of two books on civil liberties and the editor of four books.

Since Kennedy has never held or ran for elected office, it is difficult to use the network of Sunlight-related databases to research her involvements. The closest we can come is to look at her personal campaign contributions to political candidates. Here they are from 1994-2008:

Despite the obvious partisan tilt of these donations, her biggest booster at the moment appears to be Independent (former Republican) Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg.

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza gives Kennedy a 20-1 shot at being the replacement.

As you may be aware, President-Elect Barack Obama has vacated his Senate seat and Sen. Hillary Clinton will be following his lead shortly. In the wake of their respective departures, the Governors of Illinois and New York will be tasked with replacing them in their seats. In the interest of keeping an eye on this less than democratic process, I'm going to be doing a series of posts looking at the various potential replacements through the Sunlight lens. That will involve looking at campaign contributions, earmarks, votes, personal finances, and all the other kinds of data that provide an insight into who these senatorial aspirants are. But first, let's look at the deciders, Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois and Gov. David Paterson of New York.

Blagojevich is the two-term Democratic Governor of Illinois. If you had to say one thing about him it would be that he is unpopular - super unpopular. At present, Blagojevich's approval rating stands at 4%. I'm not sure of the margin for error in this poll, but it's entirely possible that Blagojevich could have a 0% approval rating. This could lead to some taint on the replacement pick, as no one wants to be seen as having anything whatsoever to do with the Governor. Fueling this super unpopularity is a wide-ranging corruption investigation into bid rigging in Blagojevich's administration.

Blagojevich is facing multiple pressures in his search for a replacement. As President-Elect Obama was the sole African-American in the United States Senate there is pressure from some quarters for Blagojevich to appoint an African-American replacement. Looming larger than the race of the replacement is whether the replacement will serve as a placeholder (as Ted Kaufman will do in Delaware) or will run for a full-term in 2010. This consideration is seen as paramount in Blagojevich's choice. Another point of interest is Blagojevich's desire to run for reelection (don't ask why someone with a 4% approval rating would seek reelection), which may cause him to seek out a loyal supporter.

This is a list of the top ten contributing industries to Blagojevich from 2002-2008. (All data comes from followthemoney.org)

Paterson took office as Governor of New York when Elliot Spitzer resigned upon revelations that he had been sleeping with a high-paid prostitute. Paterson's first order of business, which definitely influences his decision on Sen. Clinton's replacement, is his 2010 election race. Paterson isn't facing the kinds of pressures that the wildly unpopular Blagojevich faces, but there are still constituencies to appease and decisions to make. The challenges that Paterson faces include finding someone who can effectively raise a ton of money in two years to run in the 2010 special election, appeasing enough groups to smooth the way for his own election, and deciding whether to choose a rival to clear the Democratic field for the 2010 Governor's race.

Many groups are putting pressure on Paterson to choose someone from their region, race, or sex. The biggest issue at hand may be regional representation. New York regional rivalries divide on the NYC v. Long Island v. Up State axis. This Senate seat also has a history of carpetbagging. It was previously held by the Massachusetts native Robert F. Kennedy and is currently held by Chicagoan Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This is a list of the top ten contributing industries to Paterson from 1998-2008. (All data comes from followthemoney.org)

Tomorrow, I'll start to take a look at the replacement candidates.

On Saturday, Nancy Pelosi said she and the Democratic leadership had changed their position on offshore oil and gas exploration. Republicans have pounced on drilling as their solution to the pain at the pump Americans are experiencing while depicting Democrats as putting environmental concerns before the pocket books of the country's drivers. Pelosi's fudging on the issue is evidenced that the GOP's campaign is working. And the energy debate is raging as a top issue locally in competitive congressional races.

Dave Johnson writing at The Huffington Post said that the GOP was "a political party working for oil companies - for money."

With this coordinated campaign we see oil company advertisements on TV, hear them on the radio, read reports of "studies" from these industry front-group "think tanks," read op-ed pieces written by industry-paid "experts," and then to top it off elected officials and candidates reinforce the message (while the industry message reinforces their candidacy).

But what about the Democrats? Is Pelosi's switch evidence of Democrats succumbing to Big Oil's cash as well?

The Center for Responsive Politics' charting of oil and gas interests giving over the past 10 election cycles shows Republicans have received three out of every four dollars. So far in this current cycle, again, the GOP has received 75 percent of the $19.8 million contributed by oil and gas companies and PACs. The Democrats 25 percent is up from 18 percent over the 2006 cycle, which must partially reflect the fact that Democrats control Congress. The industry has almost matched its $20.2 million contribution it made in the whole 2006 cycle, and there's two-and-a-half months left before election day. With the Democratic leadership signaling they are willing to shift their position, it will be interesting to see if any more petro cash will flow their way.

Here's what's happened so far this election cycle, according to the latest figures from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Four of the top 20 Senate recipients of oil money in the current election are Democrats:

Hillary Clinton (D-NY)       $400,419 Mary Landrieu (D-LA)        $189,350 Mark Pryor (D-AR)               $85,500 Max Baucus (D-MT)              $84,850

Clinton's totals include her money from her presidential campaign. The other top Democratic recipients are from oil-producing regions.

Overall, 34 Democratic senators have received an average of $43,512 from the oil & gas industry so far this election cycle. That's slightly less than half the average amount of $90,662 received by 45 of their Republican counterparts. (Senators run for six year terms; 35 seats are up for election this year.)

Among members of the House of Representatives, five Democrats rank among the top 20 recipients of oil & gas money in the current election. Four are from top oil-producing states and the fifth, Jim Matheson of Utah, was an energy consultant before entering Congress.

Dan Boren (D-OK)              $144,050 Charles J. Melancon (D-LA)  $88,850 Jim Matheson (D-UT)            $68,847 Chet Edwards (D-TX)           $58,700 Gene Green (D-TX)               $54,000

In the current election cycle, some 172 Democrats have collected an average of just over $9,141 from the oil industry. On the other side of the aisle, 193 Republicans got an average of $19,642.

No one needs to tell the oil industry that it's unpopular these days with the American public (except in the states where it fuels the economy). In the past, other industries have smoothed their relations on Capitol Hill - no matter what the public mood - by spreading large sums of money to both sides of the political aisle. But for the most part the oil industry has not played that game. Historically, it's sided heavily with Republicans and this year follows that pattern as well.

Still, the industry does not lack for political sophistication. No matter how the elections turn out in November, the industry will still be a force to be reckoned with when a new Congress and a new administration sit down to hammer out energy policy.

Oil-state Democrats, rare as they may be, could play an important role as the natural ambassadors between an oil-unfriendly party and a Democratic-unfriendly industry. Even to a hard-nosed oilman, a little extra cash for their campaign coffers this year might seem a prudent investment.