From a regional perspective this makes sense. Like Connecticut, Nebraska is home to a high concentration of insurance companies, boasting the headquarters of Mutual of Omaha Health Plans, Physicians Mutual and Continental General, to name a few. Before entering politics, Nelson himself was the president of the Central National Insurance Company of Omaha.

So in the face of a public-plan proposal that would threaten the profits of private insurers, he’s protecting the industry that made him wealthy and showers him with tons of campaign cash. Easy enough, right?

If only it were so neat and clean.

Nelson’s decision to protect one of Nebraska’s largest economic engines is neither surprising nor uncommon, and lawmakers much more liberal than Nelson have built entire careers on that strategy. Sometimes the regional protectionism is a boon to local industry; sometimes it results in a bust. But whichever direction the insurance industry is headed, you can bet that a vote for a proposal harming local companies would do little to win Nelson support at the ballot box when he’s up for reelection in 2012.

The dilemma facing Democratic leaders — on health care, climate change, finance regulation, everything — is how to pass the strong industry reforms they prefer and still keep congressional seats in the districts where those industries are most entrenched.

The charge against Nelson will be that he’s putting corporations above the people. The deeper problem, though, is that in Nebraska — as in in many other parts of the country — they’re largely one in the same.

Davis offered sardonic praise for Obama’s record-setting fund-raising for the month of September — $150 million — and said Obama will go down as “the greatest fund-raiser in presidential political history.”

However, Davis took the opportunity to question some of Obama campaign’s contributors. Specifically, he mentioned a report that an Obama supporter in the Gaza Strip ordered $30,000 worth of T-shirts from the campaign.

Davis also announced that the Republican National Committee will unveil a searchable Website tomorrow that will disclose all donors within 24 hours of their contribution.

Unfortunately for the McCain campaign, as is so often the case, even when it is probably right, Davis’ message is somewhat overshadowed by reports that the campaign solicited contributions — which, if given, would be illegal — from the Russian envoy to the United Nations.

Among other things, you can follow the personal campaign contributions of individual lobbyists. It also lets you see which candidates have received the most money from lobbyists and political action committees (PACs).

Naturally, the first thing I did was look up Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama. McCain has raised vastly more campaign cash from lobbyists than Obama this year. Here are the figures, as of Aug. 19:

John McCain (R)
Recipient Detail

Contribution(s) found: 867
Total: $676,346
Total from individuals: $446,496
Total from PACs: $229,850

Total from joint fundraising: $692,016 [Money raised jointly with the Republican National Committee]

Barack Obama (D)
Recipient Detail

Contribution(s) found: 114
Total: $49,453
Total from individuals: $42,233
Total from PACs: $7,220

If one counts only the money from lobbyists and PACS, McCain has out-raised Obama by a margin of more than 13 to one.

However, that margin balloons rapidly when McCain’s fund-raising in conjunction with the RNC is factored in. The joint account allows McCain to continue raising money after the deadline imposed as a condition of his accepting federal financing for the general election, which Obama declined. It also allows individuals to contribute far larger amounts than allowed under federal law for direct contributions to a campaign.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to know exactly how much of the joint money goes directly to the McCain campaign. McCain receives the bulk of the joint funds, but the party takes a share, and some is distributed to support GOP congressional candidates.

Overall, Democratic candidates have raised more money from lobbyists than Republicans, according to OpenSecrets.org — $75.2 million to $65.6 million. This isn’t too surprising, given widespread expectations that 2008 will be a good election year for Democrats.

But when it comes to the race for the White House, McCain is the lobbyists’ clear favorite.

Following a Newsweek report that the commission flagged some donors to Sen. Barack Obama for exceeding contribution limits with numerous small donations using fake names,  Sean Cairncross, RNC chief counsel, yesterday accused the Obama campaign of “looking the other way” on excessive contributions. Newsweek reported the Obama campaign has since returned the donations in question. From the Post:

The FEC sent a letter to Sen. John McCain’s campaign treasurer Sept. 30 demanding the candidate turn over more information about “contributions that appear to exceed the limits.”

The letter is accompanied by a nine-page list showing scores of overages from [Sen. John] McCain’s August campaign finance report, including nearly $13,000 from Texas rancher Ray R. Barrett Jr.; $9,200 from an Iraqi security consultant, H. Carter Andress; and $5,000 from Joseph F. Davolio, an executive at a major national liquor, beer, and wine distributor.

“Please inform the Commission of your corrective action immediately in writing and provide photocopies of any refund checks and/or letters reattributing or redesignating the contributions in question,” the letter from the FEC’s senior campaign finance analyst, Leah S. Palmer, says. “The acceptance of excessive contributions is a serious problem.”

It appears that the Newsweek article comes at a very convenient time for the McCain campaign — it lent a little political cover to lessen the blow from a potentially embarrassing revelation.

However, there seems to be a pattern developing here:

Remember McCain’s attacks on Obama for being beholden to Fannie Mae — while several of McCain’s closest advisers and staff members lobbied on behalf of Freddie Mac and the mortgage industry?

Perhaps it is true that the surest sign that the McCain campaign is guilty of something is if it accuses the Obama camp of the same deed.