Oops. Turns out the Department of Homeland Security has that letter from Duke Cunningham recommending Hookergate's Shirlington Limousine after all. We'll be posting it momentarily.
My favorite line from Duke's testimonial: Shirlington CEO Chris Baker "has been of service to me and other Members of Congress over the years."
And how ...
Get the full story and letter here.
--Josh Marshall
Head for the hills! The Dems in the firm of Copeland Lowery (the firm at the heart of the Jerry Lewis investigation) are bailing out on the GOPers. I guess they didn't sign on for the federal bribery and kick-back probe side of the arrangement that Lewis' cronies on staff have gotten them tied up in.
--Josh Marshall
A sad passing. Barbara Epstein, co-editor and founder of the New York Review of Books died this morning of lung cancer.
She was 76.
Only met and spoke with her once. About a year ago.
--Josh Marshall
Ugh, the reviews just keep coming in on Joe's rendezvous with imbecility ...
From TPM Reader JM ...
Putting aside the bizarre premise and truly rookie-league production values, what does it say about Lieberman's campaign that they felt compelled to run this ad? Here's a staid former vice presidential candidate, a would-be statesman, lowered to running a straight-up attack piece more befitting an unknown, low-budget challenger. If there were any doubts that Lamont was for real, this settles it.But it doesn't even do what a classic attack ad is supposed to do. How many Democrats who were mildly annoyed with Lieberman will see this ad and actually think worse of Lamont? How many will think worse of Lieberman?
Lieberman could have lost the Senate seat and retained his own dignity. But he may lose both, thanks to his own inexplicable bad taste.
Then there's TPM Reader TS ...
Pardon my unPC-ness, but that ad is retarded. Being born and raised in CT, I can honestly say that even I don't understand it. Lowell Weicker is ancient news... funny thing is, a lot of people really liked him, especially when you consider that he was governor just prior to to John Rowland. Once Rowland started getting sketchy, a lot of people wished they had Weicker back. Lieberman needs to screw his brain back in.
It ain't pretty.
--Josh Marshall
Does the feeble Lieberman ad point to a deeper problem? Do Dems have to confront their inner doofus?
I wonder if, with Lieberman's campaign against Lamont, we're seeing the Democratic party's ineffective campaign tactics from the other side. What I mean is, aren't these the same geniuses who run campaigns against Republican opponents every two years? As we're people who regularly root for the Democratic candidate, it's hard to for us to accurately assess the effectiveness of Democratic campaign ads, since criticisms from opponents are often brushed aside.Now that we're watching these same tactics in action against our guy (or in your case, someone towards whom you're ambivalent) everyone's response has been, "My God, this is horrible!" And really Josh, you'd have the best perspective in this case, playing the role of the independent voter.
Regardless of who wins the primary, maybe this can be a learning experience and/or a wake-up call for Democratic campaign strategists.
Carter Eskew?
--Josh Marshall
Crazy like a fox? Or crazy like a moron? TPM Reader JH checks in ...
I'll chime in as someone that thinks the Lieberman ad is crazy, and not crazy like a fox.I work in graphics and advertising, and the thing that strikes me hardest about this ad is how amateurish it looks. You can get away with a crappy cartoon ad if what you're selling is the local tile and carpet dealership, but Lieberman is supposed to be a serious person, not to mention a U.S. Senator. As an incumbent he should be selling his gravitas and experience, and he should be at least implicitly referring to his deep roots to his constituents (after all, he's been their Senator since '88). Ad hominem attacks are pretty standard for political advertising, but at least most pols try to be a little dignified when making them. For a senior U.S. Senator (and former second on the national party Presidential ticket), this is embarrassing.
He's right. It is embarrassing.
--Josh Marshall
If you weren't able to view the new Lieberman 'bear cub' ad, it's up at Youtube now. And you can see it there. And, remember, it was reportedly not made by one of Lieberman's grandchildren. Apparently, an actual adult was involved.
--Josh Marshall
About that weird Lieberman ad attacking Ned Lamont as Lowell Weicker's stalking horse, TPM Reader AS writes in ...
It's about the perception of strength: Lamont as Weicker's lapdog (or in this case, bear cub). Dovetails perfectly with his other game, which is that Lamont is lapdog of the lunatic left wing Internet nerds. Whether Lamont tacks center or left, Lieberman the groundwork will be there for arguing he's somebody's puppet and not his own man. And it's not an attack that's easily defended: how do you get up and say, "I'm not so-and-so's lapdog?" Weak. Added bonuses: (1) It's somewhat Rovian. Rove's rule is to attack the enemy's strength, hard. One of Lamont's strengths as a personality is that he's a self-made, home grown Connecticut success. (2) It turns one of Lamont's primary lines of attack back around, namely, that Lieberman is Bush's/Hannity's lapdog.
I may not be subtle enough to understand Carter Eskew's genius in putting this ad together. But I have to go with the brain I have. And to me it's a dumb ad. If Lieberman wants to go with the Internet nerd argument, he should go with that argument. Getting into Lowell Weicker just makes him seem like he's in a time warp, in his own little world. And that goes to what's actually Lieberman's big liability, the perception that he's out of it, out of touch with his constituents' views. And, honestly, a bit whacked.
As for it not being easy to respond to, I don't agree with that. The pretty obvious and I'd figure pretty effective response would be for Lamont to say, "What's Joe Lieberman talking about?" I think most voters would think, Yeah, what is Lieberman talking about?
--Josh Marshall
Remember John Pondexter's Total Information Awareness (TIA) program? The ill-conceived datamining effort is back, and worse than ever -- they've stripped privacy protections and abuse safeguards from the system, and opened it up to users from all over the intelligence community, according to a new report from National Journal.
--Justin Rood
Sounds totally above board. Shirlington Limo, the outfit embroiled in "Hookergate", not only had Duke Cunningham pressing DHS to give them a big contract. But Shirlington CEO Christopher Baker was trying to get advance payment on the contract before he'd even gotten the contract.
--Josh Marshall
Like I said before, I've got no horse in this race. Or something like that. But is Joe Lieberman serious about this silly 'bear cub' ad attacking Ned Lamont as a cat's paw of Lowell Weicker? (See Hartford Courant article on it here.) This has to be the most ridiculous ad I've ever seen. It's not even that it's mean. It's just too silly and stupid to believe. Does anyone really believe that Lieberman is in this fix because of Lowell Weicker? And pace Weicker, Lieberman and ad creator Carter Eskew, but even in Connecticut, Lowell Weicker has been out of the Senate for a really long time. I don't want to say he's ancient history. But he's sort of ancient history.
I mean, maybe the next ad will be on the Missile Gap or school busing. Or maybe Lamont's failure to bring the Patriots to Hartford.
I'm not sure I even have the heart to ask my Lieberman pals what's up with this. Lieberman's trying to show CT Dems he's not out of touch but he's showing them he's out of his mind.
--Josh Marshall
Flying blind: Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee insists it was ethical to take a flight on a private plane owned by the director of a state contractor, the Lord's Ranch youth home. It was not a favor to him, but a gift to his PAC, Huckabee told a reporter. This and other news in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
We've known for some time that Shirlington Limousine, the DC outfit that reportedly procured and ferried congressmen and prostitutes to Cunningham fraudster Brent Wilkes 'poker parties', also got a $21 million contract to provide DC-area shuttle service and limo drivers for the Department of Homeland Security -- despite the fact that Shirlington and its owner had a long history of felony convictions, bankruptcies, repossessed vehicles and revoked licenses. (See on-going coverage here.)
From today's DHS oversight hearings, we learned, though not surprisingly, that no other than Duke Cunningham himself lobbied with DHS to get Shirlington the contract. In fact, according to an affidavit submitted to the Committee by Shirlington owner Christopher Baker, Duke wrote a letter to DHS in support of Shirlington's bid.
But according to DHS, that letter from Cunningham has disappeared.
--Josh Marshall
Does Rep. Sweeney (R-NY) really have a 24-point lead over his Democratic challenger? So says Zogby.
--Josh Marshall
By a 99-58 vote, the House Democrats voted tonight to strip Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) of his membership on the Ways and Means Committee. More details, including the deal Jefferson tried to make with Minority Leader Pelosi, here.
--Paul Kiel
So here we are. Tonight, the House Democrats voted to strip Rep. Bill Jefferson of his seat on the House Ways & Means Committee. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pushed very hard for this. And it's created a lot of controversy and tension within the Democratic caucus. If you're interested in some of the backstory and play-by-play, see Paul Kiel's on-going coverage.
A couple months ago, 
a conservative research group scrutinized Rep. Allan Mollohan, Democratic Co-Chair of the House Ethics committee and found a troubling pattern of Mollohan getting earmarks for West Virginians with whom he also had made real estate investments. Shortly afterward, Pelosi forced Mollohan to step down from the Ethics Committee. The Mollohan case is qualitatively different from the Jefferson case. But it was the right decision to ask him to step aside.
Now, isn't it time we detect a pattern here?
How many Republican representatives and senators are currently under investigation? Probably a dozen, easily.
And what about Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee?
Appropriations is the committee that spends the money. It's probably, by definition, the most corruptable committee in the House. Internestingly, Lewis was the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee when Duke Cunningham was getting all that loot for Brent Wilkes and Mitchell Wade. As Chair of that subcommittee, Lewis had to sign off on all that stuff. Perhaps he was just oblivious to what was happening, though according to a knowledgable source, Brent Wilkes says Lewis and he have been tight for years. Presumably investigators are looking into this.
Two of Lewis's key staffers -- one current (Jeffrey Shockey), one now working as a lobbyist (Letitia White) -- are also being investigated.
Lewis is closely tied with lobbyist Bill Lowery, who's also under investigation as part of the expanded Cunningham probe.
A week ago, a former defense contractor came forward to say that in exchange for a multimillion dollar earmark, Lewis demanded that the defense contractor not only hire Lowery as his lobbyist but also cut Lowery in for stock options in his company.
(For details on the Lewis investigation, see TPMmuckraker.com's excellent coveragehere).
For Chairman Lewis, though, it's business as usual. As far as I know, the fact that he's at the center of a criminal probe that began with the investigation of Duke Cunningham hasn't put the future of Lewis' chairmanship in any doubt at all. It's all business as usual. Yesterday, the President called Lewis to thank him for moving another spending bill through the House. "I called Chairman Lewis this morning to congratulate him on getting a good supplemental out of the House of Representatives," said the President at his press conference yesterday. "It's a supplemental that meets our numbers, and meets the requirements for a good bill."
Has anyone seen a talking head, an editorial page, anyone suggesting it may not be appropriate for Rep. Lewis to be in charge of House earmarks while all this is going on? If you have, let me know.
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) still deciding what position to take on Net Neutrality; same with Sen. Mikulski (D-MD).
--Josh Marshall
This is just one part of the debate over 'Net Neutrality'. But one argument the telcoms make against Net Neutrality, actually their main argument vis a vis consumers, is that they need these extra fees to build out the next generation of super-slick new mega-internets that will leave today's internets in the dust. There are various answers to this question. But one point to keep in mind is that with every new big telecom bill the telcos promise all sorts of new stuff. And their record is, in a word, terrible.
So what the telcoms want is a whole new class of customers (all websites, basically) they can extract fees from. And the rationale is because they'll build all this new stuff. But they've said stuff like this many times. And usually they don't follow through.
--Josh Marshall
Denny Hastert's legal crew digs in defending the earmark-enabled real estate deal.
--Josh Marshall
We've still got 48 members of the senate down on our tally list with no known position on Net Neutrality. Take a look. If you've got more info, let us know. And as long as we're on the subject here, McCain's the key guy. If he comes out in support of Net Neutrality -- or to be more specific, strong Net Neutrality provisions in the new bill, that will really matter.
--Josh Marshall
From the briefing today ...
QUESTION: Tony, American deaths in Iraq have reached 2,500. Is there any response or reaction from the President on that?SNOW: It's a number. And every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks, people want something.
The president would like the war to be over now. Everybody would like the war to be over now. And the one thing that we saw in Iraq this week is further testimony to the quality of the men and the women who are doing that, and the dedication and determination to try to ensure that the people of Iraq really do live in a free, effective democracy of their own creation and design.
Any president who goes through a time of war feels very deeply the responsibility for sending men and women into harm's way and feels very deeply the pain that the families feel. And this president is no different.
You've seen it many times. You saw it. You saw it when he was in that ballroom. You had this crowd of service men and women who were cheering loudly for the president, and he got choked up.
So it's always a sad benchmark.
--Josh Marshall
Some interesting news coming out the Shirlington Limo hearing on Capitol Hill. Update momentarily.
Update: Grand jury's investigating and Duke Cunningham's back in the mix.
Late Update: Did Shirlington have an inside line on the DHS contract? More details from the hearing.
--Josh Marshall
That's a pretty rockin' rest stop.
Paul Kiel did a little checking on that highway 'rest stop' where Majority Leader John Boehner hit the jackpost on that slot machine. Here are the details.
--Josh Marshall
Missouri Guv's office accuses prominent blogger of having "Timothy McVeigh-like fantasies" and has him tossed from a bill signing.
--Josh Marshall
Ever get lucky at a highway rest stop? Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) did last August, winning $2,700 at a roadside slot machine. This and more news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Okay, this may resolve the Sanders issue.
According to The Hotline, despite the fact that Bernie Sanders runs as an independent, he was endorsed by the Vermont Democratic party. That presumably settles the matter of the DSCC's public support for him.
--Josh Marshall
Ahh, the new doctrine of preemption. Biden on Net Neutrality ...
Others on the committee questioned the need for "preemptive" action against a problem they're not convinced exists. If the discrimination that Net neutrality advocates fear does occur, such a public outcry will develop that "the chairman will be required to hold this meeting in this largest room in the Capitol, and there will be lines wandering all the way down to the White House," said Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden.
And from profiles in courage department of the same article ...
[Arlen] Specter, for one, indicated that he would prefer looking at the issue on a "case-by-case" basis rather than issuing a "general rule" about what network operators can and cannot do--an approach favored by Internet companies. He said it may be more productive to negotiate less formal "standards" for network access with the players involved because writing new laws is "extraordinarily difficult, candidly, when you have the giants on both sides of these issues."
Just a lil' ole' senator.
Truly, isn't this the worst of all worlds from any sort of reasonable efficient markets and predictability perspective? Having Congress come in on a "case-by-case" basis to judge the various ways in which the telcoms might choose to block, degrade or extract fees for various kinds of online content?
--Josh Marshall
Denial not only river in Egypt but also House Republicans' Middle East policy.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader DO checks in ...
Josh --You raise an interesting question. Perhaps it would be instructive to look at what the DSCC is doing with respect to Bernie Sanders, who will caucus with the Democrats if elected, but may not technically be the Democratic
Party nominee (I believe he has always sought office as an independent). If the DSCC can provide support to someone who hasn't been nominated by the Democratic Party, then why shouldn't they be able to remain neutral in a contest between between two candidates, either of whom will caucus with the Democrats if elected.David in New York
Interesting point. Is the DSCC supporting Bernie Sanders in any way? I'm really not sure. If they can, I would hope they would be. There's no Democrat running as far as I know. And presumably he'd caucus with the Dems in the Senate as he has with the Dems in the House.
Late Update: About half the emails I've gotten in response to this post have construed it to mean that the fact that the DSCC might be supporting Bernie Sanders somehow settles it that Schumer can also support a party-defecting Lieberman. Don't overread.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, it ain't Bob Ney winning 30 grand on a couple hands of poker. But fellow Ohioan John Boehner still managed a $2,700 pay day.
--Josh Marshall
Some notable defections from the Congressional Black Caucus' stand on Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) committee membership.
--Paul Kiel
I just noticed on Atrios' site that not only is Joe Lieberman not willing to pledge to support the winner of the Democratic primary in Connecticut, apparently Chuck Schumer (my senator here in NY and head of the Dems' senate campaign committee) isn't either.
Now, I'm just sort of hanging back and watching this. Not taking any sides. Just an observer. But doesn't Schumer have some sort of obligation to at least nominally support the winner of the primary? I don't mean this rhetorically. I'm genuinely curious. It's well understood that in practice the campaign committee isn't neutral in a contest like this. But usually there's a pretty high bar in place for abandoning the winner of the primary. The David Duke situation down in Louisiana under the first President Bush comes to mind. But I'm not sure I can think of another example.
--Josh Marshall
Dennis Hastert (R-IL) shows everybody how easy it is to make a mint on real estate when you're Speaker of the House.
--Paul Kiel
Sen. Coburn (R-OK) against Net Neutrality; Sen. Feingold (D-WI) apparently for it.
--Josh Marshall
The latest muck on Jeffrey Shockey, the staffer-then-lobbyist-then-staffer of the scandal surrounding Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) - an analysis by Roll Call shows that the fees from Shockey's former clients jumped almost across the board the year after he left the firm. (Remember, Shockey had a special arrangement where he got to keep drawing that money even after he was back on Rep. Lewis's staff.) That meant more money for Shockey, who ultimately pocketed $1.96 million.
Sound fishy to you?
--Paul Kiel
If it ain't Texas, it all looks the same to him: Tom DeLay slips, tells legions of Virginia voters he has re-registered in "Northern California." This and more news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Lewis investigation player Jeffrey Shockey makes a cameo in Jack Abramoff's capitalist paradise.
--Paul Kiel
Mark Schmitt on Rove. Needs to take stock of his life post-Plame. Prioritize which crimes are most important to commit. Etc.
--Josh Marshall
Looks like we'll just have to keep waiting for the first verdict of the Abramoff scandal. They're having some juror trouble in the David Safavian trial.
--Paul Kiel
Zooming down the northeast corridor I was just reading Greg Anrig's delightful post at TPMCafe on conservatives' attempt to get their way out of under the Bush presidency. Greg's is actually a riff on Jon Chait's piece at TNR, which I'm just starting.
With all the efforts now to disassociate President Bush from conservatism, I am starting to believe that conservatism itself -- not the political machine, mind you, but the ideology -- is heading toward that misty land-over-the-ocean where ideologies go after they've shuffled off this mortal coil. Sort of like the way post-Stalinist lefties used to say, "You can't say Communism's failed. It's just never really been tried."
But as it was with Communism, so with conservatism. When all the people who call themselves conservatives get together and run the government, they're on the line for it. Conservative president. Conservative House. Conservative Senate.
What we appear to be in for now is the emergence of this phantom conservatism existing out in the ether, wholly cut loose from any connection to the actual people who are universally identified as the conservatives and who claim the label for themselves.
We can even go a bit beyond this though. The big claim now is that President Bush isn't a conservative because he hasn't shrunk the size of government and he's a reckless deficit spender.
But let's be honest: Balanced budgets and shrinking the size of government hasn't been part of conservatism -- or to be more precise, Movement Conservatism -- for going on thirty years. The conservative movement and the Republican party are the movement and party of deficit spending. And neither has any claim to any real association with limited or small government. Just isn't borne out by any factual record or political agenda. Not in the Reagan presidency, the Bush presidency or the second Bush presidency. The intervening period of fiscal restraint comes under Clinton.
Take the movement on its own terms and even be generous about it. What's it about? And has it delivered?
Aggressive defense policy? Check.
Privatization of government services? Check.
Regulatory regimes favoring big business? Check.
Government support for traditional mores and values on sex and marriage? Check.
That about covers it. And Bush has delivered. The results just aren't good.
--Josh Marshall
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) lawyers up! And he's managed to find one who used to run the office that's investigating him.
And he's got an impressive flack too.
--Paul Kiel
Jonah Goldberg has this one line post up at The Corner.
So where does Karl Rove report to get his reputation back?
It occurs to me that this may be meant in jest. Jonah is not without a sense of humor. But I'll assume for the sake of discussion that he's being serious.
As Andrew Sullivan aptly quips, maybe Rove can go look for it in South Carolina. More to the point, let's not forget the salient facts here. The question going back three years ago now is whether Karl Rove knowingly participated in leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative for the purpose of discrediting a political opponent who was revealing information about the White House's use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War.
That was the issue. From the beginning, Rove, through Scott McClellan, denied that he did any of that. There weren't even any clever circumlocutions. He just lied. From admissions from Rove, filings in the Libby case, and uncontradicted reportage, we know as clearly as we ever can that Rove did do each of those things.
So he did do what he was suspected of and he did lie about it.
Now, I'm happy to take Patrick Fitzgerald's word for it, his evaluation of the evidence, that there's not enough evidence to indict Rove on any criminal charge. As Rove's defenders have long made clear, the underlying statute dealing with revealing the identities of covert operatives is very hard to bring a charge with. Same goes for making false statements or perjury. Hard to prove and you need lots of evidence as to intent and so forth.
In fact, not only am I happy to take Fitzgerald's word for it, if this is in fact the case, good for Fitzgerald. A prosecutor's role is not to punish people for malicious acts. It is to ascertain whether they've committed specific criminal acts and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain a charge.
But none of this changes the fact, for which there is abundant evidence, even admissions from Rove himself, that he did the malicious act. And he lied about doing it. Indeed, on top of that, President Bush welched on his promise to can anyone who was involved.
So, what reputation is it exactly that Rove wants back? I think this development leaves Rove's reputation quite intact.
--Josh Marshall
Back in the lead-up to the Iraq War one of the few, perhaps only, US intelligence agencies to be consistently skeptical and correct about Iraq's phantom WMDs, was INR, the State Department's in-house intelligence shop. (INR's full name is the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.) That put INR frequently at loggerheads with then-arch-State Department bamboozler John Bolton, now US Ambassador to the United Nations.
During Bolton's failed confirmation hearings, the head of INR during President Bush's first term, Carl Ford, actually testified against Bolton's nomination.
Now comes word that INR is being turned over to Randall Fort, vice president and director of global security for Goldman Sachs, who appears to be a confirmed Bolton supporter.
Fort wrote a letter in support of Bolton during his confirmation hearings.
--Josh Marshall
So, where's the letter Rove's lawyer suggests he got clearing his client? Justin Rood called Luskin and Luskin says he's not releasing anything or saying how Fitzgerald told him.
That said, I think the chances are nil that Luskin is making this up since that'd be practically daring Patrick Fitzgerald to indict his client. Whatever else he may be (amateur precious metal dealer?), he's no fool.
--Josh Marshall
More fingers.
Sens. Martinez (R) and Nelson (D) of Florida.
Sens. Hutchison (R) and Cornyn (R) of Texas.
Sen. Schumer (D) of New York.
--Josh Marshall
Bush adviser Karl Rove is off the hook in the Libby leak case, his lawyer says. This and other news in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Coming down the pike (from Roll Call) ...
The House will gear up this week for what could be one of its most significant debates in several years, as the chamber spends much of Thursday considering a Republican-crafted resolution on Iraq.While the debate will be designed to allow all sides to air their views of the war on the House floor, the resolution itself — which portrays the Iraq conflict as a front in the larger war on terrorism — is likely to inspire controversy, since its language largely reflects the views of House Republicans rather than Democrats.
The Rules Committee is scheduled to meet today to set the parameters of Thursday’s debate. Because the legislative vehicle is a resolution rather than a bill, it would not be amendable by Democrats, though they will have an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit.
According to a draft version that was obtained Friday and is still subject to change, the resolution will begin by “declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.”
The resolution goes on to emphasize the importance of fighting terrorism and says that Saddam Hussein “constituted a threat against global peace and security.” The language also refers to Iraq and Afghanistan as two parts of the same fight.
The creed.
--Josh Marshall
Now Lieberman.
Sen. Lieberman's (D-CT) office tells TPM he supports Net Neutrality and the Snowe-Dorgan bill.
Here's our complete tally so far.
--Josh Marshall
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 . . . .
--Josh Marshall
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.
--Josh Marshall
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.
--Paul Kiel
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.
--Josh Marshall
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.
--Josh Marshall
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."
--Josh Marshall
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).
--Josh Marshall
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.
--Josh Marshall
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.
--Josh Marshall
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.
--Josh Marshall
More on Net Neutrality.
As you're considering this issue and contacting your senators, keep in mind that the first name on the pro-Net Neutrality bill in the senate is that of a Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Snowe's a quintessential GOP moderate. But in the House, Net Neutrality was supported not only by moderates like Rep. Shays and Leach but also by right-wingers like Reps. Sensenbrenner and Burton. (See roll call vote on HR 5252)
This shouldn't be or at least doesn't have to be a partisan issue. It's more like a monopolists versus open access issue.
Nor is it corporations versus consumer groups, though virtually every consumer-oriented group is on the Net Neutrality side. In industry terms, the division is actually quite clear: it's content providers versus the owners of the network pipes -- so, Google versus ATT and Microsoft versus Verizon.
More to come. And keep sending us info about where your senator stands.
--Josh Marshall
Texas Democrats are taking every opportunity to pound The Hammer: this time they're challenging his attempt to vote -- in Virginia. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
When the TPM Media offices open up tomorrow morning we're going to start compiling a list (mentioned Friday evening) of where every senator stands on Net Neutrality -- Democrats and Republicans. With help from TPM Readers we already got information on several senators. And it was enough to show us that a lot of them -- including a lot of Democrats -- are just trying to avoid giving their constituents any straight answers on where they stand.
With the Dems, from what we've been able to tell so far, the Net Neutrals are Dorgan, Inouye, Boxer, Clinton, Obama, Wyden and Reid. The Finger in the Wind crowd includes Feinstein, Murray, Cantwell and many others.
We'll be firming up the lists and hopefully, with your help, getting some basic information on the great majority of others tomorrow.
Now, it's of course important to know not just the underlying policy issue but also how it is being framed in legislative terms. The fight is already over in the House. Now it goes to the senate. A new telecommunications bill is being moved through the Senate Commerce Committee by Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK).
The question is whether the new bill will include Net Neutrality language or not.
The pro-Net Neutrality legislation is co-sponsored by Sens. Snowe (R-ME) and Dorgan (D-ND) -- the Snowe-Dorgan bill (S-2917).
So if you're interested in trying to find out where your senator stands, the key question is whether they support and plan to vote for the Snowe-Dorgan bill. A supporter of Net Neutrality should say 'yes', an opponent 'no'.
Also, see what you can find out by googling or other Internet research. If you come up with information about where a given senator stands on the issue, from research or calls to senate offices, send us an email and let us know.
--Josh Marshall
In Roll Call (sub.req.), Paul Kane and John Bresnahan are fleshing out the key detail about the compensation package the Copeland 
Lowery lobbying firm paid ex-lobbyist Jeff Shockey after he went back to work for Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) on Capitol Hill: his post-employment compensation was tied to how much his former clients paid his former firm after he was already working on the Hill.
This is an admittedly complicated story. And if it's new to you, I run through the details at more length in this post from over the weekend.
But the bottom line is that the clients Shockey was paid to lobby for through 2004 had a way to put more money in his pocket while he was helping run the Appropriations Committee as its deputy director in 2005.
We'll have a lot more on this tomorrow at TPMmuckraker.com.
--Josh Marshall
Matt Stoller got the scoop: Sen. Harry Reid says he strongly supports Net Neutrality.
--Josh Marshall
