Are we the Alaska of the lower 48? Coleman's gift-taking yet to be fully aired, their reelecting a convicted felon?

Go figure. Stevens appears to have a larger lead than the ever-dwindling preliminary Coleman numbers, the recount yet to be started. And their GOP guy already had to face a jury. Is that us? The two certainly are showing a bond of fully parallel conduct. Denial. Outrage. Conviction already, in the one instance. And in each instance, should the oil and gas services gift-giver go unpunished? Is that just? If only a "gift," improperly reported, it seems the giver skates. If a bribe, neither skates. We await the unraveling of the Coleman situation.

_______UPDATE________
Big E at MnBlue, here, sees it as a Stevens parallel, and a federal and tactical question about how and how long it might take to run Norm Coleman to ground, over the Kazeminy relationship - and the reach of Coleman's stance on sponsoring a favorable amendment to Kazeminy's financial interests might also be in play (but not needed to establish a wrongful-gift-reporting felony). To reach the giver, as well as recipient, it would have to be shown to not be an altruistic giving, but something having dimensions of a bribe, a quid pro quo that way.

That leaves aside the question of State jurisdiction, when sham or fraudulent insurance dealings are at issue, see here. But who, besides the public, is the victim of a transaction, no matter how shabby, where the insiders do not object? Would it require McKim of Texas to force a Commerce Department inquiry, or could I or any other citizen of Minnesota have standing to raise an administrative question of a possible breach of proper insurance dealings even where an objecting transaction insider is absent?

I sent the email, because if nobody complains, will this bureaucracy move on its own to instigate investigation? How likely is that, absent public pushing? I await the email reply. I shall post if I receive any.

Then there is Minn. Stat. Ch. 609, parts dealing with bribery; and this, with it being unclear to me without research whether federal elective office holders are governed by a forfeiture of office statute such as this:

609B.193 BRIBERY CONVICTION; FORFEITURE OF OFFICE AND DISQUALIFICATION.

Under section 609.42, subdivision 2, a public officer convicted of violating or attempting to violate section 609.42, subdivision 1, shall forfeit the office and be disqualified from holding public office.

History: 2005 c 136 art 14 s 18

Are there any legal experts out there with a comment to shed light?