Washington Babylon — October 15, 2008, 2:29 pm

Norm Coleman’s Denial and “Transparency”

I published a story last week that discussed Senator Norm Coleman’s cozy relationship with several of his campaign donors. Coleman’s office declined repeated requests for comment, but I said I would update the story if he ever offered a reply. He finally did–at a press conference last Friday. (I’ve been traveling for much of the past week and also re-interviewing my sources, or I would have noted this already.)

I had reported that Coleman’s wife, Laurie, was employed by The Hays Companies, a risk management and commercial insurance firm whose executives, spouses and employees had donated generously to Coleman between 2002 and 2006. I’d also reported that two sources had told me that Minnesota businessman Nasser Kazeminy (who previously paid for Coleman’s travel to the Bahamas and to Paris) had in the past covered the bills for Coleman’s lavish clothing purchases at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis.

Last Friday, four days after my piece had run and nearly two weeks after I had first contacted Coleman’s office to ask for comment, the senator replied. He said that throughout his public career he had tried to be as “transparent and forthcoming” as possible. His wife’s job, he said:

“has been disclosed as required under the ethics laws of the United States Senate. My wife is a certified and licensed insurance agent–she works for a living–and her employer is pleased with her work–and she is pleased with her job. And that’s all anybody is entitled to know.”

Coleman also denied that Kazeminy had ever bought him clothing, saying that he had initially refused comment to me because he believed that responding “to a baseless unsubstantiated claim that appears on a blog” would “make a story out of a non-story.”

First off, I’ll state the obvious: I would have handled the Kazeminy part of the story differently if Coleman’s office had denied the story. I had two sources that offered consistent accounts, and since publishing the story I have been contacted by a third source who backed the original ones. But the sources, even if they had good reasons for their posture, wouldn’t go on the record.

If Coleman had denied the accounts to me–and I spent a week trying to get him to offer comment–I would have talked the situation over again with my editor. I had (and have) confidence in what the sources told me but at minimum we would have featured Coleman’s denial very prominently in the story.

Instead, Coleman declined comment (because I was a “blogger,” he now says). Then his campaign manager subsequently declined to provide a specific response to questions about the matter at what the Washington Post called “the most awkward press conference in the history of politics.”

I would note here that Coleman has not always been “forthcoming” about the close relationship he maintains with some donors. As I noted in the original story, National Journal has reported that Coleman was renting a “crash pad” on Capitol Hill at what appears to be below market rate. The apartment is owned by a G.O.P. operative named Jeff Larson, the treasurer of Coleman’s personal Political Action Committee (PAC). Then it turned out that Coleman had somehow forgotten to pay two months of rent, and that Larson had not cashed one of his rent checks.

Larson’s firm had been paid more than $1 million by Coleman’s PAC and campaign. And Larson’s wife worked for Coleman’s office in St. Paul (under her maiden name), being paid more than $100,000 over two years. When this was reported, Coleman defended the arrangement, saying that Larson’s wife was one of his best employees, and that Larson’s telemarketing business had provided “great services” to the senator. That’s roughly the same explanation he’s offering now for his wife’s employment at the Hayes Companies. Meanwhile, he’s disclosed the bare minimum necessary about Laurie Coleman’s hiring by a campaign donor, saying the public is “not entitled” to know anymore more.

Maybe Coleman thinks there’s no problem with any of this, but frankly his claiming that he has been “transparent” in his dealings with the public seems like a stretch.

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2017

Crossing Guards

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“I am Here Only for Working”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dear Rose

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Year of The Frog

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dead Ball Situation

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Document of Barbarism

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall
Article
The Year of The Frog·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To look at him, Sweet Macho was a beautiful horse, lean and strong with muscles that twitched beneath his shining black coat. A former racehorse, he carried himself with ceremony, prancing the field behind our house as though it were the winner’s circle. When he approached us that day at the edge of the yard, his eyes shone with what might’ve looked like intelligence but was actually a form of insanity. Not that there was any telling our mother’s boyfriend this — he fancied himself a cowboy.

“Horse 1,” by Nine Francois. Courtesy the artist and AgavePrint, Austin, Texas
Article
Dead Ball Situation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What We Think About When We Think About Soccer, by Simon Critchley. Penguin Books. 224 pages. $20.

Begin, as Wallace Stevens didn’t quite say, with the idea of it. I so like the idea of Simon Critchley, whose books offer philosophical takes on a variety of subjects: Stevens, David Bowie, suicide, humor, and now football — or soccer, as the US edition has it. (As a matter of principle I shall refer to this sport throughout as football.) “All of us are mysteriously affected by our names,” decides one of Milan Kundera’s characters in Immortality, and I like Critchley because his name would seem to have put him at a vocational disadvantage compared with Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, or even, in the Anglophone world, A. J. Ayer or Richard Rorty. (How different philosophy might look today if someone called Nobby Stiles had been appointed as the Wykeham Professor of Logic.)

Tostão, No. 9, and Pelé, No. 10, celebrate Carlos Alberto’s final goal for Brazil in the World Cup final against Italy on June 21, 1970, Mexico City © Heidtmann/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Chances a loan cosigner in the United States will end up repaying some part of the loan:

2 in 5

Americans of both sexes prefer the body odors of people with similar political beliefs.

The case was assigned to a Trump-appointed judge, who ruled that, despite the 2010 legislation, the acting director was Mulvaney, who received about $475,000 in contributions from the financial, insurance, and real estate industries during his 2016 congressional campaign, including $9,200 from JPMorgan Chase, which was fined $4.6 million by the CFPB for failing to provide consumers with information about checking account denials.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today