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)

In the latest episode in Ted Stevens-style technological misunderstandings comes this entry from Nebraska senator Ben Nelson:

The Nebraska Democrat pleaded ignorance when asked this week whether Congress should cap ATM fees. Nelson said that while he's no fan of unnecessary fees, he's unfamiliar with the charges. "I've never used an ATM, so I don't know what the fees are,” Nelson said, adding that he gets his cash from bank tellers, just not automatic ones. “It's true, I don't know how to use one. “But I could learn how to do it just like I've . . . I swipe to get my own gas, buy groceries. I know about the holograms.” By “holograms,” Nelson clarified that he meant the bar codes on products read by automatic scanners in the checkout lanes at stores such as Lowe's and Menard's.

Nelson, of course, has received large sums of money for his campaigns from the very industry that creates these irritating ATM fees. Over his career Nelson has received $351,647 from commercial bank political action committees and their employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. You'd think that, being a senator and accepting so much money from one industry, you would want to learn the issues that effect regular people on a day-to-day basis.

This is what you should expect to get when you elect a majority of multi-millionaires to the Senate. These men and women don't partake in the same kind of everyday actions that everyone from the poor to the upper middle class do. Using an ATM, driving yourself around, flying coach, buying groceries, receiving a mortgage or car loan with so much jargon filled fine print you wind up getting screwed. Maybe some millionaire senators engage in some "normal people" behavior for electoral reasons, but they really don't have to worry about the same things that your everyday person does.

This creates a Mr. Burns effect in the Senate where so many of these senators are so out-of-touch it can be shocking at times. Just read that whole Omaha World-Herald article and you'll find out that Sen. Mike Johanns and Sen. Chuck Grassley don't use ATMs. Johanns has used one "five or fewer times" in his life. Both of these senators are also millionaires.

Despite the fall-out from the Cornhusker Kickback in the health care reform debate, Sen. Ben Nelson is, at best, creating the perception that he is seeking another parochial deal or, at worst, acting on behalf of the richest man in the United States to help protect his bottom line. News reports detail that Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett--richest man in America--lobbied Nelson to include an exemption for previously written derivatives contracts from the derivatives regulation legislation crafted in the Senate Agriculture Committee. The committee did not include the provision despite Nelson's support for it.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Nelson has received $75,550 in campaign contributions from Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett and Berkshire employees. Nelson also owns between $500,000 and $1,000,001 in Berkshire Hathaway stock, according to his most recently filed personal financial disclosure. The provision sought by Buffett would have saved Berkshire Hathaway between $6 and $8 billion.

One would think that, after the embarrassment of the Cornhusker Kickback, Nelson would consider that bartering his vote, or appearing to barter his vote, for parochial interests, especially when said interest is the richest man in America, not only will not work, but makes the senator appear rather petty.

Earlier this week, Sen. Tom Coburn and a group of Republican senators sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid stating that certain provisions in the health care reform bill violated disclosure requirements created in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Here's a snippet of the letter (Full letter):

"It is clear that the Manager’s Amendment, in addition to the underlying bill, includes specific provisions which benefit some states and not others. We therefore ask you, as the sponsor of the Manager’s Amendment and underlying bill, to provide a list of all earmarks and congressional directed spending as required by The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.”

This is a bit perplexing for a couple of reasons. First, the letter does not provide a list of the provisions that may be in violation of disclosure requirements. In the past, Coburn has been excellent at naming and providing lists of earmarks and other questionable provisions in bills, so this strikes me as a bit odd. Second, and most important, the provisions that I can only assume that Coburn is referring to would not fall under the disclosure requirements laid out in the 2007 ethics law. The provisions most likely being referred to are the Louisiana Medicaid deal made by Sen. Mary Landrieu and the Nebraska Medicaid deal made by Sen. Ben Nelson. Increases or changes in Medicaid or Medicare spending are not "directed spending items" as defined by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act and would not be subject to disclosure requirements. Here's the relevant legislative language:

5 "(a) the term 'congressionally directed spending item' means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive process"

Emphasis added. Medicaid and Medicare funding are statutory and administrative formula-driven processes and thus the disclosure requirement does not apply.

Now there could very well be other items in the Senate manager's amendment to the health care bill that would be subject to these disclosure requirements. I don't know. It would be useful to see Coburn's list of "over a half dozen" such provisions to gauge whether they should be subject to the relevant disclosure requirements. Furthermore, if Coburn believes that the requirements under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act do not go far enough in requiring the disclosure of spending targeted towards the interests of particular members it would be interesting and useful to see statutory or rules changes that he thinks are appropriate. That's a conversation I'd like to have.

TPM is reporting that Majority Leader Harry Reid is going to exclude a provision that would remove the anti-trust exemption for health insurers from the Senate health care reform bill. The move is apparently being made to grease the gears for Sen. Ben Nelson, one of three Democratic hold-outs, to vote for procedural motions in the run-up to a final vote. The provision was a huge fear of health insurers, particularly of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Both of those organizations are represented by former staffers to Sen. Nelson and fellow hold-out Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

As documented in this post from two days ago, Sen. Nelson's former legislative director now lobbies for three top health insurers: Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna and UnitedHealth Group. Sen. Lincoln's former top health adviser Elizabeth Barnett lobbies for the same three health insurers. Kelly Bingel, Sen. Lincoln's former chief of staff, lobbies for AHIP. Since 2005, Blue Cross Blue Shield has contributed over $80,000 to Sen. Lincoln and over $65,000 to Sen. Nelson.

Blue Cross Blue Shield is the largest provider of health insurance in both senator's states. In Arkansas, Blue Cross holds a 75% market share and UnitedHealth Group is second with 6% market share. Blue Cross' market share in Nebraska is 44% and UnitedHealth Group has a 25% market share. In both states, the removal of the anti-trust exemption could cause serious loss of market share for these companies.

The exclusion of the provision to remove the exemption would be a big win for these former staffers turned lobbyists. Not only did they get what their clients wanted, but the utility of their connections has been publicly touted.

The provision to remove the health insurer anti-trust exemption was included in the House bill and supported by President Barack Obama. It was used by the House and the White House as a stick to keep the health insurance industry from waging a public campaign of opposition. When the industry finally decided to publicly oppose the bill, the provision was included in the final House legislation.

The New York Times reports that there are three Democratic senators who are viewed as holdouts on a procedural vote to go forward with debate on the final Senate health care reform bill. The senators are most conservative members of the Democratic caucus and represent states that largely voted for Republicans in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential races. They also are all top recipients of campaign contributions from the health insurance industry and have former staffers working for the industry.

From 2005 to 2009, Sen. Blanche Lincoln has received $139,149 from the health insurers and HMOs. The majority of that money comes from Blue Cross Blue Shield, the health insurance provider that holds a 75 percent market share in the senator's home state of Arkansas. Blue Cross Blue Shield has contributed over $80,ooo to Sen. Lincoln since the 2006 election cycle.

Elizabeth Barnett, Sen. Lincoln's former health advisor, left the senator's office in 2007 to work as Blue Cross Blue Shield's top Democratic lobbyist. Earlier this year, Barnett left Blue Cross to work for Avenue Solutions, where she retains Blue Cross Blue Shield as a client. Avenue Solutions’ profile of Barnett notes that she “had primary responsibility for representing [Blue Cross Blue Shield] and its 39 member plans before the Senate Finance Committee, Senate Democratic Leadership, and other key Senate committees and offices.” Barnett also represents the two other major health insurers UnitedHealth Group and Aetna.

(You can see a visualization of Sen. Lincoln's connections to health care companies through her former staffers turned lobbyists here. This was created for a previous post on Sen. Lincoln.)

In 2005, Sen. Lincoln's chief of staff Kelly Bingel left to work for Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Inc. with a lobbying portfolio that includes over a dozen clients invested in health care reform. Bingel represents a who’s who of the health care industry including America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and Pharmaceutical Researchers & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). While AHIP previously refused to take sides in the health care debate, in the past few months the health insurers group has voiced a full-throated opposition to the public option and has taken on the administration and Congress over the overall bill. PhRMA, on the hand, received a sweetheart deal that was crafted by Sen. Max Baucus and the White House that won their support of the entire bill.

Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is third Democratic holdout. Since the 2006 election cycle, Sen. Nelson has received $91,200 from health insurers and HMOs. Like Sen. Lincoln, the majority of that money comes from Blue Cross Blue Shield with $65,550 coming from the largest health insurance provider in the senator's state.

Sen. Nelson's former legislative director Amy Terjal left his office in 2007 to work as a lobbyist at Avenue Solutions, the same firm as Barnett. Terjal holds the same clients as Barnett. Three of the top health insurers in the nation -- Blue Cross Blue Shield, UnitedHealth Group and Aetna -- are clients of Terjal's.

Another Democratic holdout, Louisiana's Sen. Mary Landrieu received $104,548 from health insurers and HMOs since the 2006 election cycle. Sen. Landrieu's long time chief of staff Jason Matthews (1996-2009) left her office this year to work as director of congressional affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber is a staunch opponent of health care reform recently commissioning a study to prove that the stated health care reforms being considered in Congress would have a negative economic impact.

Health insurers had remained on the sidelines of the health care reform debate until recently. In October, AHIP released a study that claimed to show the cost of health insurance plans rising in the years following the enactment of reform. Since then, the organization has begun running television commercials in at least 10 states threatening seniors that their benefits will be cut under the reforms under consideration in Washington.

Earlier today, Majority Leader Harry Reid held a closed door meeting with these three senators to assuage their concerns and court their vote on cloture for the health reform bill. Sen. Nelson released a statement that appears to show support for voting in favor of cloture on the bill, "Why would you stop senators from doing the job they're elected to do -- debate, consider amendments, and take action on an issue affecting every American?"

Despite what seemed to be a bruising August for health care reform efforts, Congress still appears to be on a path to pass a bill this year. At the center of that effort is one Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. Snowe is perhaps that most moderate Republican remaining since Sen. Arlen Specter jumped ship to the Democrats. An analysis of her voting record this year shows that she is more likely to vote with the Democrats than to vote with her Republican peers. It comes as little wonder that she would be targeted as the deciding vote on health care reform.

Snowe has a 60% or higher voting agreement with every Democratic or Independent senator for the 111th Congress, while maintaining the same level of voting agreement with only twelve Republicans. The voting similarity between Snowe and Democrats is so similar that she holds a 70% or higher voting agreement with eleven Democratic senators. She holds this level of voting agreement with two Republicans.

The two Republicans that have a high level of voting agreement with Snowe are Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Sen. Collins, Maine's junior senator, is, like Snowe, often a reliable Republican vote for the Democrats. Collins also cast votes in support of the stimulus bill and other Democratic proposals including S-CHIP expansion and fair pay in the work place. Collins holds the highest voting agreement of any senator with Snowe at 86.92%. Murkowski's voting agreement with Snowe likely results from her support for fair pay in the work place (all Republican women in the Senate supported this legislation) and her support for most cloture votes.

The Democrats with the highest voting agreement with Snowe are also seen as key votes in the health care reform push. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Sen. Blanche Lincoln hold the two highest voting agreements with Snowe. Both are seen as key votes on any health reform bill and Nelson, in particular, has been a key player in all major legislation this year. Nelson was instrumental in passing the stimulus bill earlier this year and has recently echoed Snowe in her support for a public option trigger in the health care reform legislation. Lincoln is seen as one of the more conservative Democratic senators and faces a tough reelection campaign in one of the few states that trended away from the Democrats in the 2008 election. Her vote will be crucial to Democrats on health care reform and her high level of voting agreement with Snowe shows how crucial the Maine Republican's support for a bill may be.

The regularity with which Snowe votes with Democrats may be a bright spot for the majority as they push forward in the health reform debate. As some have determined that reform efforts have dwindled as the summer has come to an end, a careful look at the landscape shows that little has changed. All that matters is whether Snowe intends to use her position as the most Democratic friendly Republican to craft a bill she would support.

To see voting agreement with Sen. Olympia Snowe for all senators see this visualization.

The visualization was created using data from the New York Times' Congress API.

Six senators called for a seventy day hold on voting on health care reform legislation today, according to the Huffington Post. The senators involved include three Democrats, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Ron Wyden, two Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and one Independent, Joe Lieberman. Each these senators has raised at least $1 million from the health and insurance sectors combined over the course of their respective careers. What could seventy days do for their campaign coffers?

(Some of these senators are not in cycle right now and are not raising much money right now, but, hypothetically, this is the money they could be raising considering the amounts they have raised over the course of their career.)

Sen. Susan Collins raised $1,559,446 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of her career. Her first day in office was January 7, 1997. In total, she has served 4,574 days as a United States Senator. This calculates out to her raising $341 every day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $23,870.

Sen. Mary Landrieu raised $1,676,353 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of her career. Her first day in office was January 7, 1997. In total, she has served 4,574 days as a United States Senator. This calculates out to her raising $366.50 every day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $25,655.

Sen. Joe Lieberman raised $3,593,771 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of his career. His first day in office, as a senator, was January 3, 1989. In total, he has served 7,136 days as a United States Senator. This works out to him raising $504 a day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $35,280.

Sen. Ben Nelson raised $2,257,165 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of his career. His first day in office, as a senator, was January 3, 2001. In total, he has served 3,118 days as a United States Senator. This works out to him raising $724 a day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $50,680.

Sen. Olympia Snowe raised $1,147,630 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of her career. Her first day in office was January 4, 1995. In total, she has served 5,309 days as a United States Senator. This calculates out to her raising $216 every day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $15,120.

Sen. Ron Wyden raised $1,414,911 from the health and insurance sectors over the course of his career. His first day in office, as a senator, was February 6, 1996. In total, he has served 4,911 days as a United States Senator. This works out to $288 every day from the health and insurance sectors. Seventy more days would yield $20,160.

Factor in lobbying into these seventy days and the amount of spending around this bill could skyrocket. If we go by the numbers presented by the Washington Post, that the health sector is spending $1.4 million a day on lobbying, then we'll find another seventy days would allow the industry to spend another $98 million.

With Sen. Arlen Specter grabbing the headlines yesterday with his party switch, here are two cool interactive visualizations that show the 'topography' behind the senator’s dramatic move.

The first one comes from two political science Ph.D. students at the University of Michigan who write the Computational Legal Studies blog. It’s a view of where Specter sits in terms of the campaign finance environment in relation to all other senators during the 110th Congress.  The visualization allows you to zoom in and read the labels on large institutional givers and the senators they made contributions to. You'll see that Specter is closer to the Democrats than the Republicans in this visualization.  Here are the overall Senate and the House version. And here’s the visualization of industry giving to senators.

Another very cool visualization comes from Slate, where they present the Senate as a “Facebook-style” social network. Slate’s visualization clearly demonstrates how Specter and the vast majority of his former GOP senatorial colleagues kept each other at arm’s length. Slate connects senators who vote together 65 percent of the time. By playing around with the visualization you will see that most senators hang tight with the lawmakers from their own party. Specter is one of four that "float" between the two-party masses, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine and Ben Nelson from Nebraska.

Super visualizations like these are one of the more interesting and most illustrative ways to open up government data so anyone can figure out what is really going on.