Okay, we’ve got our first group of senators in the Finger in the Wind (FIW) category on Net Neutrality. That means, senators who either refuse to say where they stand or who are ‘studying the issue’.

Let’s run down the list.

Sen. Coleman (R-MN), Sens. Warner (R) and Allen (R) of Virginia, Sens. Menendez (D) and Lautenberg (D) of New Jersey, Sen. Durbin (D) of Illinois, Sen. Salazar (D) of Colorado, Sens. Cantwell (D) and Murray (D) of Washington, Sens. Landrieu (D) and Vitter (R) of Louisiana, Sens. Reed (D) and Chafee (R) of Rhode Island and Sens. Kohl (D) and Feingold (D) of Wisconsin.

More to come.

Late Update: This is not and isn’t meant to be a comprehensive list. We’re posting new entrants to the FIW list as we get them. We’re going to be posting a complete list, with frequent updates, a bit later today.

A tough image to see, but worth seeing: two Iranian teenagers hanged last year for being gay. Vigils are planned for the one year anniversary.

More senators in the Finger in the Wind category on Net Neutrality. Sen. Dayton (D) of Minnesota, Sens. Bayh (D) and Lugar (R) of Indiana.

And one more definite supporter of Net Neutrality: Sen. Kerry (D) of Massachusetts. That according to Kerry aide David Wade.

Okay, with most senators we just don’t have any information yet. But here’s our vote tally of where senators are on Net Neutrality.

We’ve divided them into Supports (9), Opposes (3), Finger in the Wind (19), and No Information (69).

Ahhh, that’s the spirit. Rep. Moran (D-VA) says that if the Dems win back the House and he snags an Appropriations subcommittee he’ll “earmark the shit out of it.”

Yet more Net Neutrality Fingers in the Wind.

Sens. Santorum (R) and Specter (R) of Pennsylvania.

Sens. Mikulski (D) and Sarbanes (D) of Maryland.

Sens. DeWine (R) and Voinovich (R) of Ohio.

Sens. Levin (D) and Stabenow (D) of Michigan.

Sen. Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts.

Sen. Burr (R) or North Carolina.

Sen. Nelson (D) of Florida.

Here’s something we’ve been interested in for a while. Recently, when various congressional bamboozlers have gotten in ethics/corruption trouble they’ve claimed that whatever sketchy scam they were working was actually approved by the ethics committee. Only, they didn’t get anything in writing. And the ethics committee won’t comment on individual cases on the record. So it amounts to a completely unverifiable alibi. Now it seems that Lewis staffer Jeffrey Shockey got the same kind of mystery go-ahead.

Over at TPMmuckraker, some new developments in our continuing investigation of the web surrounding Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)…..

DC property records show that his staffer, Jeffrey Shockey, a 39 year-old multimillionaire, is claiming a senior citizen tax deduction on his home.

Meanwhile, there’s more on Shockey’s big $2 million buy-out from his former lobbying firm. It looks like his former clients were willing to pay a lot more once he was working on the Hill.

And finally, a look at the lobbying practice of the husband of Letitia White, the other Lewis aide under FBI scrutiny, shows money pouring in from unknown defense firms.

Senator Dodd (D) of Connecticut signs on as a co-sponsor of the Snowe-Dorgan bill, aka the Internet Freedom Preservation Act. Here’s his statement …

Statement of Senator Chris Dodd on Net Neutrality and the Internet Freedom Preservation Act:

“There is no denying that the internet has revolutionized the way that Americans work, communicate, and access information. With more Americans accessing broadband and other high speed technology, the internet will certainly continue to serve as an important tool for technological innovation.

“Unfortunately, in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) eliminated regulations that preserve openness on the Internet. I disagree with that action; I support the principle of “net neutrality.” Since its inception, the internet has been an open system and this openness has proved to be an effective facilitator of market innovations and economic growth. Limiting or restricting access may sacrifice future opportunities for further innovation.

“Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) have introduced S. 2917, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, a bill that preserves network neutrality. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation.”

We’ll add him to the list.

So is the House ethics committee really giving out all these undocumented approvals of various sketchy financial arrangements — ones that the ethics committee won’t confirm because they won’t answer questions about specific cases? That’s what we’ve heard from Rep. Doolittle (R-CA) and Rep. Lewis’ (R-CA) staffer Jeffrey Shockey.

Now we hear this from a Democratic Hill staffer …

Just my two cents: what [Shockey’s representative] is saying really does not make sense. During the EXACT SAME TIME PERIOD, our office had questions about whether our boss could serve on an advisory board of an activist group. We called the ethics committee and asked. The response: “hmmmm. That seems a little complicated. We would be more comfortable researching it and giving you a written opinion. It sounds like it could be OK, but we can’t really give a definitive response without processing an advisory opinion.” I would assume the questions about his severance package were at least as complicated as our question and would have received the same response.

Then, we had to wait. I called every couple of weeks to follow up. All told, we waited about three months before the response was received.

So, in my opinion, there is no way the ethics committee would have given an oral approval for something like this.

Anyone else up on the Hill want to chime in on this? We find it pretty difficult to believe that someone wouldn’t ask for an opinion in writing, or something they could point to, if they were really trying to be sure they had a go-ahead. But let us know.

Late Update: Hmmm a long-time TPM Reader who’s a campaign finance lawyer in DC doesn’t buy this either …

In a word: bullshit. If Shockey didn’t get a written opinion from the House Ethics Committee then the Committee didn’t approve his arrangement. Anyone who has ever dealt with the professional staff on the Ethics Committee will tell you that if you call and make an oral request for advice they will give you they best guidance they can given the facts presented, but that their oral advice doesn’t constitute Ethics Committee approval for any proposed course of action. Rep. Lewis shouldn’t have allowed Shockey to begin work without a formal written advisory opinion from the Ethics Committee. Of course, the Ethics Committee probably would have prohibited any contacts between Copeland, Lowrey and Shockey, not just lobbying contacts by Shockey’s wife while employed by Copeland, Lowrey, so I guess we know why no one ever pushed for that written opinion . . . .