In addition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who’s made no bones about the money he brings home to Nevada, embattled Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) isn’t shying away from advertising her efforts:

Nearly every day, her campaign and Senate offices trumpet money that she’s helped secure for her home state — from $13,811 for the Hope Police Department to buy a new cruiser to a $102 million stimulus-funded grant for the state to pay for broadband Internet. [...]

”I’m going to fight hard for my state because, let me tell you, these dollars are going to go somewhere else if we don’t get them,” Lincoln told The Associated Press.

Politicians have feared using this kind of rhetoric in a time when earmarks — though a miniscule portion of the federal budget — are being linked rather successfully to wasteful spending and looming deficits in Washington. But the political science professors I spoke to for my article all noted that what looks like wasteful pork spending in some other state or district often smells like delicious bacon when it’s in your own. And smaller or poorer states like Nevada and Arkansas, in which residents often feel (rightly or wrongly) like they are getting a smaller slice of the federal pie, are especially prone to accepting such logic in the name of fairness or “leveling the playing field.”

DirtyEnergyMoney.com tracks industry contributions from 1999 to June 2010 based on Federal Election Commission disclosures. The web site was launched by MoveOn, Public Citizen, Greenpeace, Energy Action Coalition, True Majority, 350.org and others.

According to the site, the top five “dirtiest politicians” (those that took the most money from industry) are:

1. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

2. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)

3. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

4. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)

5. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.)

The site also targets Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who is facing a tough reelection battle this year. Lincoln has accepted $814,882 since 1999, the site says. According to the site:

Arkansas’ Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln seems to have drilled into the largest deposit of dirty campaign cash in the most recent election cycle. What has she done to deserve such generosity? She voted for the Murkowski Big Oil Bailout, a bill that would have gutted clean air protections and increased our oil dependence. She also voted to keep sending our taxpayer money to big oil and gas.

If leadership can get the support of all 33 “yes” votes, the 16 “probably yes” votes and the 10 lawmakers listed as “on the fence” (which is a big “if”), that only brings the vote count to 59, according to Politico. That means leadership needs to convince one “probably no” lawmaker to support a final bill.

Politico lists five Democrats in the “probably no” category: Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Carte Goodwin (D-W.Va.) (who underscored his opposition to cap-and-trade last week), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-.W.Va.).

Worth noting: If Lincoln’s Senate race remains as tough as it now appears and Goodwin steps aside, as expected, to let another Democrat run for his seat in the fall, four of those five “probably no” Democrats won’t be around next year. Freed from electoral pressure, might one of them “vote his/her conscience” and support an energy bill? Only time will tell.

A revolt among big donors on Wall Street is hurting fundraising for the Democrats’ two congressional campaign committees, with contributions from the world’s financial capital down 65 percent from two years ago. The drop in support comes from many of the same bankers, hedge fund executives and financial services chief executives who are most upset about the financial regulatory reform bill …. This fundraising free fall from the New York area has left Democrats with diminished resources to defend their House and Senate majorities in November’s midterm elections…. The two congressional committees have raised $49.5 million this election cycle from people giving $1,000 or more at a time, compared with $81.3 million at this point in the last election.

And from Politico’s story, by Maggie Haberman:

While the exact quarterly figures won’t be known until after the July 15 filing deadline, a number of Democratic campaign insiders said the past few months were a mighty struggle to raise cash for candidates. … While most Democrats blame the economy and anger from Wall Street for the fundraising predicament, President Barack Obama, whose own donor model was low-dollar contributors and Internet contributors over high-dollar types, has headlined just one major New York event so far this year, for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Both describe how wealthy Wall Street types have stopped writing big checks to Democrats — and both run through several reasons why. Many Wall Street donors have lost a lot of money since 2008, between the collapse of various hedge funds and investment banks and Ponzi schemes. Many Wall Street donors are angry at the Obama administration for going after the banks. Furthermore, I imagine that, with the Wall Street reform process mostly over, fewer big donors see the need to try to influence the goings-on in Washington anymore. And perhaps this campaign cycle is just less exciting than the last. Enthusiasm tends to go down during midterms, and without Obama out there fundraising alongside many Senate candidates, many of those deep-pocket types might feel less need to give.

The question, of course, is how this might change the electoral landscape. Both stories, I think, could use a bit more illustration of just how influential the financial industry is in Washington. I pulled these charts from the Center for Responsive Politics, showing donations by industry:

These data are from the last cycle, and donations from individuals in the securities and investment world came in third, just behind retirees and lawyers. But if you look at donations by broader industry group, rather than sector, the financial world comes in first, and by far — much higher than oil and gas, or Hollywood, or Silicon Valley, or construction, or agriculture:

One might think that the loss of deep-pocketed donors might have an outsize impact on states like Connecticut and New York, where many financial firms are based. But that is not strictly true. Indeed, both New York senators, Democrats Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, are up for election and doing well, even if Wall Street donations are short. And financial industry, if not Wall Street, types give huge sums to basically every senator. Consider Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D), running a tough campaign in Arkansas. Last time she ran, donors from the securities and investment industry gave more to her campaign committee than donors from any other industry, save for law.

At the meeting among key Democrats in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Lincoln resisted calls for compromise, a Democratic aide briefed on the conversation said. Her refusal to strike a deal is dividing liberal Democrats supporting the proposal and moderates who want it removed. The issue is expected to be in the spotlight Thursday as the House and Senate seek to reconcile their versions of the bill.

Lincoln’s derivatives reform is a key part of the legislation; Cho calls it the “notable exception” to a bill that doesn’t attempt any structural changes to Wall Street, and liberal observers have been most positive about the proposal, despite their otherwise cool feelings towards Lincoln’s actions in the Senate. That Lincoln has held her ground against efforts to tone down the proposal is a good sign for strong financial regulation.

What’s more, it seems to vindicate President Obama’s decision to support Lincoln in the Arkansas Senate primary, where she faced a strong challenger from the left in Attorney General Bill Halter. Supporting Lincoln angered unions and progressive activists, but from the administration’s perspective, it made the most sense. “Centrist” concessions notwithstanding, Lincoln supported Obama on the stimulus package and health care reform, and her work on financial reform has provided the administration with surprisingly hawkish legislation. Granted, Halter’s challenge is what initially spurred Lincoln’s strong derivatives language, but by returning the support, the White House may have ensured continued loyalty from Lincoln, at least on financial reform.

Contra administration critics like Glenn Greenwald, a White House-supported challenge would have completely untethered Lincoln from the administration. Win or lose, Lincoln would have the rest of her term to serve out with no reason to support the administration, and every incentive to make life difficult for the White House and its liberal supporters. On the whole, it made far more sense for Obama to support Lincoln and allow her to make compromises to appease Halter supporters. Yes, it disappointed progressives activists, but it left Obama with a mostly friendly senator, instead of an embittered one.

For instance, today The Wall Street Journal’s Damian Paletta reports on a change Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) is pushing for the benefit of a single Arkansas bank, one primarily owned by the Waltons of Wal-Mart fame no less.

Under Ms. Lincoln’s proposed change, Arvest would be excused from a provision that could require banks to raise more capital, in Arvest’s case about $115 million. Other Senate Democrats had intended only to exempt banks with less than $10 billion in capital from the provision. Ms. Lincoln wants to raise that to $15 billion, a threshold that would exempt Arvest. It is the only bank in Arkansas with between $10 billion and $15 billion of assets, though there are some in other states.

White House officials have said they don’t want changes that benefit specific companies, leery of the horse-trading that nearly sank their health-care overhaul. But the administration also can’t afford to alienate Ms. Lincoln, head of the Senate Agriculture Committee, whose support on the broader overhaul is vital to its success.

Lawmakers routinely do things to benefit organizations in their home states, often seen as “constituent service.” But Ms. Lincoln’s move could cause headaches for other Democrats because Arvest is owned by such a wealthy and politically influential company.

This is hardly the first time Lincoln has been accused of doing Wal-Mart’s work. And in other Wal-Mart-possibly-influencing-major-Senate-Democrats news, the Daily Caller has a provocative, thin story on the $20 million in donations the world’s biggest retailer has made in Illinois, purportedly to curry favor with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) over the debit card fee provision in the financial regulatory reform bill. They apparently lost that battle, if they were fighting it.

Banks are likely to lose a key lobbying battle … over whether they will be forced to spin off their lucrative swaps desks, according to people familiar with financial reform negotiations in Congress. … Blanche Lincoln, the Senate agriculture chairman, is the lead proponent of the plan, which would force banks to create a separately capitalised subsidiary to house the derivatives dealing operations — a significant source of profits for big banks, such as JPMorgan Chase.

The expensive restructuring could drive activity out of the largest Wall Street banks and into more lightly regulated rivals and overseas competitors, according to the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which oppose the plan. …

Mr Volcker — who has become a talisman of the financial reform effort ever since the “Volcker Rule” to force banks to end proprietary trading was embraced by Barack Obama, US president, in January — previously opposed the Lincoln provision. Although he declined to say whether he now supported it, Mr Volcker told the Financial Times that his earlier criticism was based on the belief that a stricter spin-off was in the works and it was now a “relevant question” whether damage would be done if swaps desks could be kept within a bank holding company.

Still, I would throw out a note of caution. Last week, I was talking with a source knowledgeable about the negotiations, and said I never understood the politicking around this derivatives rule. Few Democrats want this measure in the bill — not President Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the F.D.I.C., the S.E.C., Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) or the Federal Reserve. It’s mostly progressives and Lincoln herself who care about keeping it in there. Why push for it? My interlocutor said that Hill Democrats don’t care for the Lincoln provision itself. But they care plenty for how it improves their bargaining position and makes them seem tough on banks. Basically, with the Lincoln provision in there, they recognized they could force banks and Republicans to play ball to try to get it out — or they could leave it, and really get strong on Wall Street.

That political analysis could be wrong, of course. And we’ll know more once the conference committee picks up again tomorrow. But I still would not discount the possibility that the story is saber-rattling and the provision will ultimately be dropped or traded for some form of the Volcker Rule.

The EPA was required by the Supreme Court to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act, if it found them to endanger the public — which it did last December. Murkowski’s resolution would have, in effect, ruled that the EPA was wrong in its scientific assessment that greenhouse gases posed a threat.

The Democrats joining all Republicans in voting for the resolution were: Evan Bayh (Ind.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.).

Even if it had passed the Senate, the resolution would have faced steep odds in the House and a certain veto from President Obama. Still, it would have sent a powerful sign about the Senate’s willingness to tackle carbon emissions ahead of the upcoming debate on energy and/or climate legislation.

When you tune into the conference, you’ll see a packed room — the committee is huge (members are listed after the jump) — with long tables seating members from the House on one side and the Senate on the opposite, in turn divided by party. Presuming all goes as planned, [Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)] will chair the committee, since the Senate asked for this conference and also chaired the 1999 session. The committee will use the Senate bill, with a few House-bill substitutions, as the default working text, which gives an advantage to reformers, since the Senate bill — which includes the Volcker rule and tough derivatives-reform provisions — is stronger than the House bill. In broad strokes, you should expect the Senate to play defense while the House plays offense.

Conference works like this: Going title by title through the bill, House members will submit an offer to the Senate contingent. If any House member wants to change that offer, they can propose an amendment and it will be voted on — but only by the House members. When the offer is finalized, it goes across the table to the Senate’s conferees, who can elect to accept the offer, or amend it to make a counter-offer — again, voting just among Senate conferees. Conferees may leave the room to negotiate with their respective caucuses, and the offers go back and forth until there is consensus. At no time does the entire conference committee vote on one title or the whole bill; the final version — the conference report — is authorized with the signatures of a majority of conferees.*

Each side may propose an unlimited number of amendments, so to avoid a filibuster-type situation, Frank and Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd [(D-Conn.)], who leads the Senate delegation, plan to impose time limits on discussion. Nonetheless, it is expected that the meetings will go long into the night and into next weekend, and Republicans could try to force tough votes.

While each side’s conferees are supposed to be representing their respective chambers, partisan differences will likely ensure that a majority of Democrats from either chamber control the pace and content of the debate, though Dodd will have to ensure that the final report can muster sixty votes in the Senate. If [Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)] is still ready to fight for her derivatives-reform bill, and Frank is still smarting from losing some tough votes on financial reform last year while everyone was focused on health care, the conference is likely to strengthen the bill.

Find the base texts for the conference committee’s work here.

There is no knowing for sure, of course. The bill is complex, the likelihood of loopholes high and the lobbying to drop or keep even esoteric provisions will be fierce. (One person’s seemingly innocuous auto-dealers exemption is another person’s billion dollars.)

But I find it hard to believe that the Lincoln win will change what always seemed inevitable. Neither Wall Street nor the White House nor Barney Frank nor many Democrats really wanted the derivatives proposal in the bill. Now, it will be most useful in that Democrats have it as a trading chip — possibly to be exchanged for a stronger Volcker Rule.

Josh Green at The Atlantic has a good comment on the politicking there:

It doesn’t seem like a stretch to conclude that Lincoln eeked [sic] out a win by convincing just enough voters that she was a Wall Street scourge. If her signature provision goes down in flames, she’ll look toothless and weak, and almost certainly lose her seat. The bank lobby and the Obama administration (both oppose the Lincoln provision) may simply prove too strong and do the deed anyway. But their task got a whole lot harder. The markup conference will now get a lot more attention. That could be tough for Lincoln. But it will be especially tough for Democrats who wanted to kill her provision without suffering any political damage.

My sense is that the derivatives spin-off proposal is difficult enough to explain to voters — well, difficult enough to explain to anyone — that it will not become a rallying point for reformers. People pushing hardest for reform — such as consumer advocates — are already honing in on other measures. Moreover, progressive members of the Senate have themselves described it as ill-constructed. And it will be hard for Republicans to castigate Lincoln for not winning the provision since none of them supported it either.