Mr. Ryan, 73, told reporters that he faced prison with a clear conscience.

“I have said since the beginning of this 10-year ordeal that I am innocent,” he said. “And I intend to prove that.”

Mr. Ryan, who in 40 years in public office became one of the most powerful Republicans in the Midwest, was convicted last year of a long list of corruption charges stemming from his tenure as secretary of state and governor of Illinois, including using public money for campaign work and exchanging state business for money and gifts, among them an island vacation.

Outside Illinois, he was better known for his moratorium on the death penalty and commuting more than 160 death sentences to life in prison just before leaving office after one term, in 2003. To some, Mr. Ryan’s prison term should be cautionary in a state where making deals and giving favors have long been viewed as politics as usual. He is the third former Illinois governor convicted of wrongdoing.

“I would like to believe that this will have a chilling effect on corruption by public officials, but I’m not optimistic,” said Mike Lawrence, who directs the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University.

New accusations of corruption continue to swirl around officials in the state. Federal investigations have started in connection with officials in Springfield, the capital, as well as Chicago City Hall.

Former Gov. James R. Thompson, a member of Mr. Ryan’s legal team, said he would appeal the case to the Supreme Court next year. A federal appeals court upheld the conviction in August.

Before dawn on Wednesday, Mr. Ryan left his home in Kankakee, 50 miles south of here, his face lighted by the news camera flashes. They later filmed him entering a pancake house in Chicago. Arriving at the prison in Oxford, Wis., Mr. Ryan entered through a back door.

The prison has housed other Illinois politicians, including Chicago aldermen, a Cook County Circuit Court clerk and former Representative Dan Rostenkowski.

Mr. Thompson suggested that Mr. Ryan would work a prison job, as required of all healthy inmates. Prison officials say possible jobs include serving food, mopping floors, landscaping and cleaning toilets. Prison officials said he was allowed to take in his wedding ring and an extra pair of eyeglasses.

For some, a Senate committee's investigation into six well-known evangelical ministries is long overdue, a needed check on preachers living lavish lifestyles built with their donors' generosity.

But even among those who welcome the scrutiny, there was concern Wednesday over government intrusion into religion, more red tape in the name of transparency and undue burdens on preachers and churches who play strictly by the rules.

The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, faxed letters Monday to a half-dozen evangelical mega-ministries requesting information about compensation, board oversight and perks — from luxury oceanside homes to flights on private jets to opulent spending on office furniture.

The organizations are not legally required to respond. Some have released statements pledging to cooperate, others have hedged and all have emphasized their commitment to following applicable tax laws.

The IRS requires that pastors' compensation be "reasonable," a figure set by collecting comparable salaries and weighing factors such as church size and a pastor's value to the congregation. IRS rules prevent pastors and other insiders from excessive personal gain through their tax-exempt work.

Marvin Olasky, editor of World, an influential conservative Christian magazine, credited Grassley for racheting up the pressure on ministries he believes are far too secretive about how donations are spent.

"These organizations should be pressured to disclose information," Olasky said. "If glasnost worked in the Soviet Union, it can work in relation to these ministries."

Olasky, however, cautioned that "hard cases make bad law." Echoing others, Olasky said governmental action should be a last resort and that the Christian community and media needs to press organizations to be more open.

The six ministries in the inquiry share Pentecostal theology, a strong television presence and a "prosperity gospel" message emphasizing material rewards for the faithful. They are:

_ Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church and Paula White Ministries of Tampa, Fla.

_ Benny Hinn of World Healing Center Church Inc. and Benny Hinn Ministries of Grapevine, Texas;

_ David and Joyce Meyer of Joyce Meyer Ministries of Fenton, Mo.;

_ Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries of Newark, Texas;

_ Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church and Bishop Eddie Long Ministries of Lithonia, Ga.;

_ Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International and Creflo Dollar Ministries of College Park, Ga.

These kinds of huge, non-denominational operations are like smaller churches in that they aren't required to publicly disclose their finances.

Scott Thumma, a megachurch expert at the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, said they require even greater scrutiny because they lack denominational oversight and have a penchant for unchecked lavish spending.

"If this attention makes these ministries more accountable to donors, it's probably a positive step forward," Thumma said. "At the same time, it does pose challenges about what is the role of government in how a church spends its money and who is accountable. These are probably legitimate concerns by those pastors watching from outside."

Some pastors, Thumma said, might be hesitant to speak out because "they are looking at that slippery slope and don't want to be seen as advocating for the government getting involved in the roles of church."

Dollar released a statement saying questions raised by Grassley's inquiry "could affect the privacy of every community church in America."

Others question whether the halls of Congress are the appropriate setting for the debate.

"I do wonder why a Senate committee would be doing this when the IRS is perfectly capable of enforcing its own rules — and does so frequently," said James Bopp, a nonprofit and tax lawyer who represents several large evangelical organizations but none of those under investigation.

Tom Minnery, a senior vice president at the evangelical media ministry Focus on the Family, said he was disappointed that Grassley thinks an investigation is necessary. Minnery called existing tax rules "vigorous."

In an interview Wednesday, Grassley said his committee has jurisdiction over nonprofits and oversight over the IRS. He said it's unclear whether the IRS is doing enough to police Christian nonprofits or whether existing guidelines go far enough — questions that are part of the inquiry.

"We're going to let these ministries speak for themselves," he said. "Hopefully, it comes back everything's OK, but the allegations we've heard about raise questions."

Grassley also said the inquiry will not delve into doctrinal issues, and that he understands church-state separation concerns. At the same time, he said religious nonprofit groups should be expected to follow rules governing nonprofits just as secular groups are.

"I'm hoping these organizations clean up their own act if there's something wrong," Grassley said.

An IRS spokeswoman declined comment on the Grassley investigation, which could lead in several directions: public hearings, more ministries being drawn in, and potential penalties ranging from back taxes to loss of tax-exempt status.

The evangelical nonprofit world already polices itself through the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, which requires members to annually submit audited financial statements and answer other transparency questions. But membership is voluntary, and none of the groups under investigation belong.

IRS audits and inquiries into nonprofits, meanwhile, are confidential. Even if a Christian ministry is punished, donors don't learn about it unless the organization under scrutiny makes it public.

"I see this as a kind of a tug of war of interests," said Rodney Pitzer, managing director of research with MinistryWatch.org, which grades Christian groups on financial accountability.

"On one side you have a ton of good ministries out there who want to be unshackled from red tape and government bureaucracy. In that midst unfortunately are wolves in sheeps' clothing."

The question is whether a particular complaint form, the intake questionnaire, constitutes a formal discrimination charge that can serve as the basis for a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA).

Under the ADEA, employees must wait 60 days after filing a formal EEOC complaint to bring a lawsuit against their employers. The rule is designed to give the employer sufficient time to investigate the charges and perhaps reach an out-of-court settlement with the employee.

Almost half of EEOC complaints are filed by small business employees, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, which filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Federal Express.

In 2006 the EEOC received more than 75,000 discrimination charges, only 5% of which had reasonable cause to go to court, according to Karen Harned, executive director of the NFIB's legal foundation.

Harned argued that U.S. employers would face a surge in discrimination lawsuits if the justices decide that intake questionnaires qualify as discrimination charges.

"There has to be a filtering process or small business owners will be inundated with litigation," she said.

In December 2001, a Federal Express (Charts, Fortune 500) courier named Patricia Kennedy filed an EEOC intake questionnaire claiming that FedEx was in the habit of improperly firing older employees who did not meet the company's hourly delivery quotas.

The EEOC did not follow up on Kennedy's complaint. In April 2002, Kennedy and several other older employees, including Paul Holowecki, filed a class action suit against Federal Express. In May 2002, Kennedy belatedly submitted a formal discrimination complaint, known as a Form 5, to the EEOC.

A district court threw the case out on the grounds that plaintiffs were legally required to submit the Form 5 before filing suit against their employers. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed that decision, ruling that an intake questionnaire could indeed be considered a formal charge.

At yesterday's hearing, the justices concentrated on the issue of how the EEOC handles discrimination complaints. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that employees should not be held responsible for the EEOC's complex and often contradictory regulations.

"I don't understand the leap from government incompetence to the plaintiff losing," the chief justice told Federal Express advocate Connie Lensing.

The plaintiffs' advocate, David Rose, argued that the validity of a discrimination charge should not be a function of the form on which it was filed.

But Justice Antonin Scalia responded that employees were responsible for reading the forms that they filled out. "You can't run a system for people who are illiterate," Scalia said. But he also criticized the EEOC's procedures for handling discrimination complaints. "The problem is the EEOC," Scalia said. "What kind of agency is this?"

It may be months before the Supreme Court rules on Holowecki, but the outcome could force the EEOC to change its procedures for all discrimination complaints, including those that arise under the Americans with Disabilities Act and under Title VII, which covers discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

"The decision in Holowecki will likely resolve the many inconsistencies among federal circuit courts of appeal on the issue of whether an EEOC intake questionnaire may constitute a charge of discrimination under the ADEA," said Paul Secunda of the University of Mississippi School of Law, in his American Bar Association preview of the case.

"Depending on the breadth of the holding, the case may also answer this same question for related federal employment discrimination laws."

In each case, the rappers were simply given a new court date.

Busta Rhymes, whose real name is Trevor Smith, was ordered to return Jan. 23 when jury selection will begin for his trial on assault and drunken driving charges.

Rhymes, 35, is accused of kicking a fan, punching a former employee, driving drunk and driving with a suspended license.

Ja Rule, born Jeffrey Atkins, was told to come back Dec. 5. The 31-year-old rapper was arrested on weapons charges last July after police stopped his 2004 Maybach — a car that sells for up to $400,000 — and found a loaded .40-caliber handgun.

Lil Wayne, 24, was ordered to reappear in court Feb. 25. The performer, whose real name is Dwayne Carter, was arrested for illegal gun possession after he performed at the same concert in Manhattan as Ja Rule.

Prosecutors say police officers smelled marijuana coming from Lil Wayne's tour bus, and as they approached, he tossed aside a bag with a loaded .40-caliber handgun.

Grammy-nominated Remy Ma, 26, whose real name is Remy Smith, is charged with assault and witness tampering. She is accused of shooting an acquaintance over money and then trying to intimidate her. She was told to return Dec. 5.

Remy Ma, who has recorded songs with Busta Rhymes and Lil Wayne, said she knew all the other rappers who were in court and considered them friends.

The girl identified the 49-year-old man, who had multiple prior arrests for burglary, in a photo lineup, they said.

The man, from Bayville, was arrested by an officer when he went to First District Court for an unrelated issue, police said. He was charged with second-degree burglary.

It didn't: Ross was let go eight days into his tenure because his employer, Ragingwire Inc., said federal law makes marijuana illegal no matter the use.

On Tuesday, the California Supreme Court is due to hear Ross' case, the latest example of the intensifying clash between federal and local authorities over marijuana use.

Ross, 45, contends that Ragingwire discriminated against him because of a back injury and violated the state's fair-employment law by punishing him for legally smoking marijuana at home.

He says he and others using medical marijuana should receive the same workplace protection from discipline that employees with valid painkiller prescriptions do. California voters legalized medicinal marijuana in 1996.

Eleven other states, including Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state have adopted similar laws and many are now grappling with the same sticky workplace issue of employee use of medicinal marijuana.

The nonprofit marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, which is representing Ross, estimates that 300,000 Americans use medical marijuana. The Oakland-based group said it has received hundreds of employee discrimination complaints in California since it first began tracking the issue in 2005.

"It's an extremely widespread problem," said Joe Elford, the group's chief lawyer.

Several national medical organizations and disability rights advocates have filed friend-of-the-court papers urging the Supreme Court to rule in Ross' favor.

Ross, who lives in Sacramento, said he permanently injured his back in 1983 while serving as a U.S. Air Force mechanic. He said it wasn't until 1999 that he found true pain relief with marijuana.

The American Medical Association advocates keeping marijuana classified as a tightly controlled and dangerous drug that should not be legalized until more research is conducted.

"I think I'm standing up for everybody else," Ross said. "My motivation is that I don't like to lose and that medical marijuana is effective."

So far, though, Ross has been losing.

Two lower courts have sided with Ragingwire's decision to fire Ross because federal law holds that marijuana is illegal in all guises and a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision declared that state medicinal marijuana laws don't protect users from criminal prosecution.

Ragingwire marketing chief Doug Adams declined to comment on the case.

Ragingwire, a small telecommunications company in Sacramento, has been joined in the Supreme Court by powerful corporate interests such as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Western Electrical Contractors Association Inc., who said companies could lose federal contracts and grants if they allowed employees to smoke pot.

The conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a friend-of-the court filing that employers could also be liable for damage done by high workers.

"History abounds with cases of employers found liable," the Sacramento-based foundation wrote, "because their employees were driving vehicles, operating heavy equipment or otherwise performing tasks made more dangerous by their being under the influence of alcohol or drugs."