Alaska's senior Republican Senator, Ted Stevens, has just been indicted by a federal grand jury in Washington for lying to federal investigators.

The story is relatively complicated, but basically Stevens failed to disclose an array of gifts he received from an Alaska oil executive who's pleaded guilty to bribing Alaska lawmakers.

Talking Points Memo has done the most thorough reporting on the case, and Josh Marshall summarizes the charges against Stevens, the longest serving Republican senator ever, in this video.

Stevens is up for re-election this year and was already facing a tough opponent in charismatic Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, whose father Nick, the state's last Democratic Congressman, died tragically in a plane crash in 1972. The latest Rasmussen poll showed Begich opening up an 8-point lead on Stevens. Stevens is also facing a primary challenge from an eccentric businessman, Vic Vickers. Republicans must be hoping that Stevens either loses the primary or resigns following the indictment, otherwise this race will turn into a landslide.

Begich debuted a great ad earlier this month that hinted at Stevens' murky dealings without directly mentioning them. It takes place at a car wash.

Stevens' indictment is more bad news for Congressional Republicans, who lost control of Congress largely because of a barrage of corruption scandals. Alaska's lone Congressman, Republican Don Young, is also under criminal investigation. For years Republicans maintained a political monopoly in the state by fusing oil money and pork-barrel politics. Now it's all unraveling. The 49th state is on the verge of turning from deep red to unlikely blue.

Comments (49)

1. Alright, alright, step right up....

   who'll be the first right-wing "Nation" blogger to defend poor ol' Ted Stevens and claim it's all a witch hunt by an out-of-control prosecutor?

   LVLIB?.....HAPPY?.....MARYBRET?...

   come on, don't be shy....step right up!

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 2:14pm

2. This simply reflects a problem I have addressed on several occasions.

   With the passage of the 16th amendment, Congress obtained a power that can only produce corruption as a byproduct.

   Virtually, every member of Congress, if they stay in office long enough, will probably be involved with some kind of graft.

   If Stevens is guilty, he needs to pay the price for his accused greed.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 2:34pm

3. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 2:34pm

   See, I knew poor Ted's decline could be traced back to that early bit of socialism...the income tax!

   And if only they hadn't invented crystal meth, Ted Haggard would still be fighting the good fight!

   heheh

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 2:58pm

4. well for one he will find his "bridge to somewhere"it may not have been where he wants to go,but this is what happens when you are in a position of power for so many years. I guess you feel that you are invincible.

   I guess the obligatory "I will be vindicated" spiel will come this afternoon,but he will find a lot of people that he knows should he be found guilty,at the bottom of the bridges walkway waiting for him.To say what took you so long.

   Posted by eniobob at 07/29/2008 @ 3:14pm

5. "Stevens' indictment is more bad news for Congressional Republicans, who lost control of Congress largely because of a barrage of corruption scandals."

   wait a second.

   didn't they lose because the dumbocrats said they would end the war?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 3:19pm

6. Lets decide what to do AFTER the trial..maybe given him the Rostencowski award...

   Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/29/2008 @ 2:22pm

   you should be happy he's been indicted.

   YOU are the one ALWAYS complaining about government waste.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 3:23pm

7. you neo-cons are lame.

   this is your usual defense; William Jefferson,Sandy Berger. But, nice try on the Rostenkowski deflection Jomamma, and Luvvy drives by with his "Tax Cuts will save everything (including the near $500,000,000,000 deficit?) " attempt to deflect.

   But, alas, this is not due to any socialist world domination theory, it is due to greed and power. I might be able to link it to the "energy policy" of the Bush administration and their desire to open up protected areas in hopes of producing 2% of our energy needs, to then sell to Japan and China. Who reaps the rewards for that? "Alaska Oil Executive"? Could be.

   Mask, Meth is a direct result of Wobblie influence in the beginning of the 20th century. I thought someone as well read as you would be able to see the link.

   Posted by crabwalk at 07/29/2008 @ 3:23pm

8. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/29/2008 @ 3:23pm

   As lame as an impeachment over oral sex, MAASCH?

   Or less so?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 3:25pm

9. See what happens in court. If he is found guilty then good for catching him. It is still innocent until proven guilty. Keep businesses out of government is all I have to say. Oil companies shouldn't be giving money to politicians. Just as much as I shouldn't be giving money to politicians. Politicians get what they earn for their labor and that's it. Should you be able to give money to a cop in order to get him to let you off?

   Other than that I pass no judgement until he is actually proven guilty. That is not always 100%(OJ Simpson) but hopefully justice is right.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 3:35pm

10. See, I knew poor Ted's decline could be traced back to that early bit of socialism...the income tax!

    And if only they hadn't invented crystal meth, Ted Haggard would still be fighting the good fight!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 2:58pm

    Can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that you're wrong and I'm not defending the guy.

    I wasn't talking about socialism. I was noting the corruption that the Income Tax has produced. Try a little objective examination and notice how much corruption we have in Congress since the implementation of the income tax. It comes from trying to influence spending primarily and the need Congress members feel to be continually re-elected to office.

    Think a little deeper Mask than your usual glib and shallow responses.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 3:40pm

11. Impeachment for lying to the Feds under oath...who cares what is is about..-----Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/29/2008 @ 3:43pm

    Uh, John...that was my point-

    "Alaska's senior Republican Senator, Ted Stevens, has just been indicted by a federal grand jury in Washington for lying to federal investigators."

    i.e. your post of Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/29/2008 @ 3:23pm.

    Seems SOME lying to the Feds you care about....some you don't?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 4:05pm

12. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 3:40pm

    What am I wrong about, LVLIB?

    That your first instinct was to point out "why Stevens was forced into his life of crime"...before chastising him?

    Do you NOT believe that the income tax (16th Amendment) and the spending that comes from its revenue are "socialism"?

    What?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 4:07pm

13. And Hollywood? Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/29/2008 @ 3:42pm

    Let me be more clear. NO company should give money to politicians.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 4:24pm

14. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/29/2008 @ 3:42pm

    If a politician chooses to make a life as politician and to serve the government and the US. Then like in the army the government owns your ass. Which means you make your income from them. You don't work for anyone but the American PEOPLE. Not corporations. Corporations do not vote. Owners of corporations do but you are beholden to the best interests of the majority, not a few companies. Companies should not be able to pay in order to have their interests represented. Politicians should not be taking money from anyone including every day average joe.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 4:28pm

15. What am I wrong about, LVLIB?

    That your first instinct was to point out "why Stevens was forced into his life of crime"...before chastising him?

    Do you NOT believe that the income tax (16th Amendment) and the spending that comes from its revenue are "socialism"?

    What?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 4:07pm

    Number one because here is what you said:

    "Alright, alright, step right up....

    who'll be the first right-wing "Nation" blogger to defend poor ol' Ted Stevens and claim it's all a witch hunt by an out-of-control prosecutor?

    LVLIB?.....HAPPY?.....MARYBRET?...

    come on, don't be shy....step right up!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 2:14pm"

    I did nothing of the sort.

    Secondly, I didn't say he was forced into a life of crime for one thing.

    I said sooner or later, nearly all members of Congress are guilty of some level of graft. And it comes from the fact that the income tax created a system that prompts attempts to influence spending and the desire or need to stay in office and enjoy the power that the ability to tax and spend other people's money gives them.

    And no, the income tax in and of itself is not socialism, nor is all government spending. But certainly since FDR, we have spent more on socialist spending programs than any other nation in the world.

    And my noting that Stevens if convicted should pay the price was not an after thought but merely a sequence of response structure. Again, typical of you attempting to determine what someone thinks absent any objective evidence to support your conclusion.

    I could easily have placed it first in the response. However as a former engineer, I am use to structuring conclusions according to their importannce. The tax system is obviously of greater importance as a defect than one individual given the many convictions of Congressmembers from both parties.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 4:35pm

16. LVL did you feel the earthquake down there?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 4:49pm

17. Companies should not be able to pay in order to have their interests represented. Politicians should not be taking money from anyone including every day average joe.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 4:28pm

    Let me be more clear. NO company should give money to politicians.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 4:24pm

    So, you are against the first amendment? And the 5th Amendment, for Due Process?

    Money has been ruled by SCOTUS as a form of free speech and Due Process. I refer you to Buckley v Valeo

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

    The ability to have free speech should not be limited which it seems liberals like yourself would like to impose.

    An important principle in the first amendment is the right to petition for redress of grievances. The courts have consistently ruled that this also applies to corporations. Money to change or influence elections is a form of that petitioning.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 5:00pm

18. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 5:00pm

    I don't agree with the law. I don't think this is apart of free speech. As much as you like to employee your generalization logic I am not for stopping free speech.

    I don't think money is apart of free speech. If you want to give a small donation to a politicians campaign that's fine. Giving a politician 20,000 dollars so he can help you get permits passed is not. The politician is an employee of the government. He works for the people. What would happen if a corporation found out you were taking money from a competitor to do favors for the competing company? You would be fired. In the government you get jail time.

    "So, you are against the first amendment? And the 5th Amendment, for Due Process?"

    Both of these comments are dishonest. Me being against politicians getting money does not make me against free speech. You once again twist my words with your generalization logic and demonization of everyone you don't agree with.

    "See what happens in court. If he is found guilty then good for catching him. It is still innocent until proven guilty. Keep businesses out of government is all I have to say. Oil companies shouldn't be giving money to politicians. Just as much as I shouldn't be giving money to politicians. Politicians get what they earn for their labor and that's it. Should you be able to give money to a cop in order to get him to let you off? Other than that I pass no judgement until he is actually proven guilty. That is not always 100%(OJ Simpson) but hopefully justice is right. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 3:35pm"

    I never said anything about not giving him Due process. So in no way am I against the 5th Amendment. You should read everything before you make your generalization so you can at least choose the right ones to use.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 5:22pm

19. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 5:00pm

    A corporation is not a person therefore I don't feel it should have the rights of people. You can not try a corporation as a person therefore why should it then get the rights of a person if it doesn't have to follow the laws of a person?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 5:26pm

20. I believe he should be given due process like I said as LVL so easily decided to omit. Whatever the ruling is that's what it is and it should be left at that.

    I also don't think this has anything to do with free speech. It is a matter of whether you should be able to bribe a public official.

    LVL. Should you be able to give a cop money to avoid a ticket?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 5:29pm

21. LVL did you feel the earthquake down there?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 4:49pm

    Yeah, we got shook pretty good. Lost both our landline and cell phone service for a bit.

    Everyone is ok.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 6:28pm

22. I don't agree with the law. I don't think this is apart of free speech. As much as you like to employee your generalization logic I am not for stopping free speech.

    I don't think money is apart of free speech.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 5:22pm

    Your problem is that the courts including SCOTUS have consistently disagreed with your view.

    So,unless you get a constitutional amendment to ban money from corporations and unions and special interest groups, this activity will continue.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 6:38pm

23. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 6:38pm

    And it will continue legally. Just like you don't like the 15th Amendment, I don't like corporations being able to give money to candidates. Is there a problem with that? Do I have to agree with everything in the Constitution?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 6:48pm

24. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 6:38pm

    I am not saying that they try people unconstitutionally if they haven't committed a crime I am just sending out my disagreeance with the ability to Special interest groups, unions and corporations to give money to politicians.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 6:50pm

25. Yeah, we got shook pretty good. Lost both our landline and cell phone service for a bit. Everyone is ok. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 6:28pm

    Yeah we lost cell phone. I think the towers were just overloaded with people calling around. It's weird being in Los Angeles buildings when earthquakes happen because they are all built on rollers. So they sway a lot when it comes.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 6:51pm

26. Stevens seemed like such a nice man too... He seemed to portray all the Family Values of a true American... Such a shame.

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/29/2008 @ 7:32pm

27. And it will continue legally. Just like you don't like the 15th Amendment, I don't like corporations being able to give money to candidates. Is there a problem with that? Do I have to agree with everything in the Constitution?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 6:48pm

    Whoa CCC. It's the 16th amendment, not the 15th I don't like. The 15th amendment gave the vote to Blacks. Someone might not know our dialogue history and think I'm racist.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 8:32pm

28. Wow happ.. You make ol' Ted out to be a VICTIM... Too funny.. You sure did leave out alot of the charges... Corrupt and a great symbol of unadulterated DC power... DEM or Republican, there is no excuse for his ILK to hold any position of power. OBVIOUSLY CLEAN ...?? LOL... Follow the yellow brick road Dorothy.. Your TINY little sum you over-claim on your truck is insignificant... And besides, who are you..?? A senator..?? No.. your just an average joe, just like the rest of us. Hanky-panky..?? how cute.

    If this POS were a Democrat you'd have the gallows ready for him... So don't pretend you can excuse corruption. It really undercuts ANY of your arguments in the future.

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/29/2008 @ 8:39pm

29. Whoa CCC. It's the 16th amendment, not the 15th I don't like. The 15th amendment gave the vote to Blacks. Someone might not know our dialogue history and think I'm racist. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 8:32pm

    Sorry sorry. Honest mistake. You're no racist.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 8:52pm

30. And no, the income tax in and of itself is not socialism, nor is all government spending. But certainly since FDR, we have spent more on socialist spending programs than any other nation in the world.

    posted by lvsomethingvagueakintoliberty

    yeah!

    that money should have been spent on vapourizing chinese!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 10:19pm

31. Money to change or influence elections is a form of that petitioning.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 5:00pm

    and what great results it brings.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 10:21pm

32. I probably claim my truck for business expense at a higher % than what I actually use it for that purpose.....

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/29/2008 @ 7:51pm

    you'd better unsubmit that one very quickly.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 10:23pm

33. You're no racist.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 8:52pm

    nope.

    he's ready to kill people of ANY colour.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 10:25pm

34. nope.

    he's ready to kill people of ANY colour.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 10:25pm

    You're an idiot and just about as unstable as Rese or Plunger given many of your recent postings.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 10:55pm

35. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 10:55pm

    jesus thinks you suck.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 11:07pm

36. I don't agree with the law. I don't think this is apart of free speech. As much as you like to employee your generalization logic I am not for stopping free speech. I don't think money is apart of free speech. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 5:22pm

    Your problem is that the courts including SCOTUS have consistently disagreed with your view. So,unless you get a constitutional amendment to ban money from corporations and unions and special interest groups, this activity will continue. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 6:38pm

    sounds like Luvvys problem is with the courts, and the American people.

    Ask Wesley Snipes about the 16th Amendment.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/30/2008 @ 07:19am

37. that money should have been spent on vapourizing chinese! Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 10:19pm

    No, Frosty, THOSE Communists are good, they allow us to use their labor force and water at discount rates. Luvvy wants to vaporize other religions and their adherents that make him FEEL unsafe. But that feeling cannot be used against him, if he wants to invade two countries and kill anybody that gets in his way (well, not HIS way, cuz he won't go), then he is justified because he feels scared, but if another country feels afraid because Luvvy has troops stationed all around, that is just too bad, because Luvvy is a "Merican!!! He hates most of America, but he is still a proud Nationalist.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/30/2008 @ 07:25am

38. Any words from the neo-cons about the Justice Depts internal investigation that says that Chimpys minions BROKE THE LAW when hiring political sycophants to be law enforcement ?

    hmmmm, anything? Because last we heard from the cons, nothing was wrong with asking people who their wives worked for or why Bush is the Second Coming or not hiring women that might, maybe, could be like Mary Cheney.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/30/2008 @ 07:29am

39. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/29/2008 @ 4:35pm

    LVLIB, I'd love to see you try to prove a case that Congress BEFORE the income tax was "less corrupt" than the ones that came after it.

    Of course, it might require a few sources outside the "No Income Tax" right-wing websites.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/30/2008 @ 07:55am

40. Lets decide what to do AFTER the trial..maybe given him the Rostencowski award...

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/29/2008 @ 2:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    .

    Huh? Who? Rostenkowski?!

    Maybe you missed it John...that award got recommissioned a couple of years ago.

    It's now called the 'Dukestir'...after the new King of Corruption...

    ...Randy 'Duke' Cunningham.

    But hey...there's still hope for a new 'Kng'..Stevens has been in office for quite some time...and the investigations are just getting geared up.

    There might be MUCH more to find out about Ted's management of that $900B he had to work with.

    Posted by Lillian at 07/30/2008 @ 10:08am

41. LVLIB, I'd love to see you try to prove a case that Congress BEFORE the income tax was "less corrupt" than the ones that came after it.

    Of course, it might require a few sources outside the "No Income Tax" right-wing websites.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/30/2008 @ 07:55am

    It's hard to get that kind of corruption without any money at stake.

    To deny the power of money to corrupt is lacking any objectivity on your part.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/30/2008 @ 10:22am

42. Ah, another member of the McClellan Congress bites the dust. Repubs getting caught and Dems managing not to seems to be the only thing any of these vacillating clowns can get done.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 07/30/2008 @ 11:57am

43. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/30/2008 @ 10:22am

    So the Congresses of the pre-1913 era were "relatively corruption-free" compared to those that followed the 16th Amendment???

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/30/2008 @ 12:15pm

44. BTW, LVLIB...here's a good place to start your research paper-

    http://americandemocracy.nd.edu/working_papers/files/ democracy_and_corru ption.pdf

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/30/2008 @ 12:18pm

45. It's hard to get that kind of corruption without any money at stake. To deny the power of money to corrupt is lacking any objectivity on your part. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/30/2008 @ 10:22am

    Haha. Congress was just as corrupt. How many of them were bought by corporations during the Industral Revolution so that the corporations could control more area?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/30/2008 @ 12:37pm

46. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/30/2008 @ 12:37pm

    It's a tenet of LVLIB's secular faith that "The income tax and the money it generated is what made Congress so corrupt!"....

    not out of any evidence, but simply because he WANTS it to be true.

    Read up on pre-1913 Congresses...in many cases they were WORSE than the ones we've had since the income tax and "all that money it garnered for us".

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/30/2008 @ 2:34pm

47. Yeah Mask, but that was back when the Little People knew their place, and for the most part kept in it. Back before the libroooolls brought the evils of the middle class to the masses.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/30/2008 @ 4:23pm

48. Back before the libroooolls brought the evils of the middle class to the masses.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/30/2008 @ 4:23pm

    that's not true!

    they were dribbled upon in a shower of gold.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2008 @ 7:59pm

49. Government keeps many records of Public Information, via marriage licenses, vehicle registrations, real property transactions including financing of purchases to show true ownership during any loans/mortgages. So, why not REQUIRE that ALL business entities making contributions to government officials file public notices (obtain a permit, as for building codes) with the Elections Contributions Reistrar upon making contributions to these officials. Publications of this data should appear in the jurisdiction's legal journal, along with dollar amounts of government contracts completed and in progress for the past 5 years, making this available for public distribution or circulation, or inspection online. Otherwise these enterprising folks feel they have bought the rights to pick taxpayer's pockets.

    Posted by CAPTAINSKIPPY at 07/31/2008 @ 02:30am