First question - the headline question: Something for the FBI to ask - inspired by the comments to a MinnPost online item. There the apologists for the Coleman stonewall talked about disclosure constraints that could be at play barring an employee's disclosure of an employer's trade information. That raises the question of what Laurie Coleman's status was. Did she work regular hours, per a schedule set by Hays Companies, or did she come and go as she pleased; and did she draw a salary, or invoice on some contractual basis and have her invoices paid, as an independent contractor would? Those are questions, since, if an independent contractor, she could show the public her invoicing records and business banking records, if any, without any compromise to Hays Companies business, nor any grounds for Hays to object.
If she's an independent contractor as Hays claims, it's her business, not theirs. She can disclose. The primary thing stopping that from an independent contractor, would be the will of the contractor and her spouse.
Two Putt Tommy had the link referencing Coleman Senate disclosure forms, where the Senator, a seasoned lawyer knowing the nuances, wrote "salary" which is something an employee gets, not an independent contractor; yet Hays is in record calling Ms. C. an independent contractor; e.g., see here and here (this last link raising the very status question raised here and now but not in the context of any unhindered right to disclose exculpatory information, if any, or a lesser right of an employee if the information is an employer's to release or hold private). Indicia of status as an employee or independent contractor are analyzed in unemployment insurance cases where employees can seek benefits but contractors cannot; see, e.g., here and here. Washington Times this past Thrusday, reported:
According to records, the Coleman payments were sought on invoices mailed by Hays to DMT in May, June and September 2007. The invoices listed an overnight delivery address and an account number for wire transfers.
Hays Executive Vice President Michael Prins was named in the documents as the "producer," or the broker. Mr. Prins has contributed more than $27,000 to Republicans since 2000, including $4,500 to Mr. Coleman, according to FEC records. James C. Hays, the insurance company's founder, donated $15,850 to Mr. Coleman and his campaign committees since 2002, according to FEC records.
In a statement, the firm called the accusations "libelous and defamatory." It said the payments went for risk-management consulting services and denied any of it went to Mrs. Coleman, whom the company described as an independent contractor.
The Colemans have declined to release information showing Mrs. Coleman's earnings at Hays or any documents listing her duties.
The question of suitable public disclosure, and the motive to self-exonerate if the evidence supports such exoneration, was discussed by Eric Black, quoted at length and linked to, here.
Second question: Is this house worth issuing a three-quarters-of-a-million mortgage absent it being owned by a Senator that a banker might want to gratuitously benefit; for business or personal purposes (i.e., a reportable gift, if more is lent on the home as security without personal recourse or collateral, than it would ever be worth). Have a look at the picture that MinnPost provides, here - click to enlarge the screenshot:
_________UPDATE_________
I cannot find a general WaPo Senate disclosure report page, only the item Two Putt Tommy linked to, but there is this Open Secrets link, which gives reports in pdf form, current and for the recent past.