Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign and political action committee has benefited from a large amount of money from top executives of Morgan Stanley, a global financial services corporation which has been implicated in the financial and mortgage meltdown that brought about the Great Recession. A report by the Center for Public Integrity released this week scrutinized Pawlenty’s ties to top executives at the company, finding that he’s raised more than $800,000 in the last month with its help.

According to the report, Pawlenty’s Freedom First PAC got $79,500 from Morgan Stanley executives last year. Only Federated Insurance gave more to Pawlenty. Pawlenty has also tapped Morgan Stanley executive Bill Strong to co-chair his presidential campaign, and under Strong’s leadership, Pawlenty raised $800,000 in two events — one in Chicago and another in Texas.

Morgan Stanley has been the target of numerous probes involving the mortgage and investment crisis. Last month, the company, along with Bank of America, settled after it was alleged that it wrongfully foreclosed on nearly 200 military personnel. In 2009, it settled with consumers who alleged Morgan Stanley misrepresented investment information. New York state launched an investigation last month into Morgan Stanley’s role — in addition to several other large financial services companies — in the mortgage-backed securities crisis that eventually led to the nationwide economic recession.

Massachusetts won a settlement in March from Morgan Stanley for its role in the mortgage crisis. Another settlement was reached with Colorado in March as well.

Morgan Stanley was also a recipient of bailout funds. When Pawlenty announced his presidential bid, he promised to end bailouts.

“Pawlenty’s aggressive pro-business stance as governor coupled with government scrutiny of Morgan Stanley could create image problems with some voters still angry about the Wall Street bailout,” wrote the Center for Public Inquiry in their reports.

Minnesota scored zero points on 18 of 43 criteria, getting nicked for such things as failing to require legislators to provide descriptions of employers, spouses’ employment, investments and even the names of dependents.

At the other end of the Mississippi River, Louisiana leapfrogged from the country’s 44th-worst state for legislative disclosure to the best in the nation.

Al Franken won the U.S. Senate contest by 225 votes. That was the determination that the five-member State Canvassing Board put their signatures to on Monday. Franken duly declared victory, pronouncing himself the “next senator from Minnesota.”

But as subsequent events have made abundantly clear that doesn’t mean the never-ending Senate contest is over. Indeed the legal contest filed by Norm Coleman’s campaign on Tuesday means it could still drag on for months. Here’s a quick primer on what will unfold in the coming weeks.

Why isn’t this thing over?

Under state law Coleman has the right to contest the legitimacy of the election in court and he has chose to do so. (See the relevant statute here.)

What is the crux of Coleman’s argument?

His campaign alleges widespread inaccuracies in vote tabulations across the state during both the general election and the recount. In Minneapolis, for instance, Coleman argues that 133 ballots that are thought to have been lost were wrongly included in the recount. The Republican’s campaign also argues that in some instances (roughly 130 to 150) duplicate and original ballots were both counted — thus resulting in an individual receiving two votes. But the biggest pool of votes at stake in the election contest will be 654 ballots that the Coleman campaign maintains were wrongly rejected by local election officials. These ballots have twice been examined by election judges and deemed unacceptable, but the Coleman campaign continues to assert that they were improperly tossed out from the count. (Read the 204-page lawsuit here.)

Why is Coleman challenging so many different types of ballots?

He has a lot of ground to make up. The 225-vote margin might seem insignificant in a total universe of nearly three-million ballots, but the lawsuit will only focus on ballots where improprieties are alleged. Take the allegedly double-counted ballots, for instance. Because they are concealed in an election envelope, there is no way for the Coleman campaign to know which candidate those voters supported. In other words, even if they are ultimately thrown out it’s uncertain who would benefit and by what margin.

“From a numerical point of view he has to contest absolutely everything,” says David Schultz, a political science and law professor at Hamline University. “If he doesn’t he may not have the numbers to win. … He needs the perfect storm of law at this point to win.”

So what happens next?

Supreme Court Justice Alan Page will select a three-judge panel to hear the election contest.

Why Page?

Under state law the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is charged with naming the three-judge panel. But because Eric Magnuson served on the State Canvassing Board he has recused himself from this duty. Page is the next highest ranking justice.

What are the guidelines for selecting the three-judge panel?

They can be plucked from any level of the Minnesota court system. In other words, Page could select an Anoka County District Court Judge, a jurist from the Minnesota Court of Appeals and one of his fellow Supreme Court justices. He could also pick himself.

When will this happen?

Only Justice Page can say for sure. State law does not specify a time-line. Presumably he will make the selections quickly.

What do we know about Justice Page’s politics?

Most political observers believe him to be a Democrat. Football fans recall his days as a star defensive end for the Minnesota Vikings and his election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was initially elected to the state’s top court in 1993 and has been re-elected by wide margins twice since. A search of the campaign contribution database maintained by the Center for Public Integrity reveals no political donations made by Page over the last two decades, although his wife did contribute $1,000 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2007.

Does this mean the case won’t end up in federal court?

No — although most legal observers deem this possibility remote. The Coleman campaign has cited federal issues in its legal filings, most notably the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and has referenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Bush v. Gore ruling. Clearly they want to preserve the option of going federal with a lawsuit.

So when will this finally be over?

Nobody knows. Most political observers have speculated about a roughly two-month timeframe. But legal expert Ron Rosenbaum, speaking on KFAN (1130-AM) yesterday, poured cold water on that relatively quick scenario. “I think those people are dreaming,” he told host Dan Barreiro. “This thing could easily last longer than you even want to imagine, if permitted, and I think there’s a reasonable chance that could happen.”