Fact Check: Sunday's Senatorial debate

Image via Wikipedia

TwinCities.com

During the debate between Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, Franken and the Independence Party's Dean Barkley, Franken said Coleman had accepted trips from the same businessman accused in a lawsuit of trying to funnel money through the senator's wife's employer. Franken craned his neck up toward the questioner and responded simply, "Yeah."
Franken is correct.
In Senate disclosure forms, Coleman has reported receiving the following gifts over $305 from Bloomington financier Nasser Kazeminy: a private plane trip with Coleman's daughter valued at $3,960 on Feb. 21, 2005, and a private plane trip with his wife valued at $2,870 on May 27, 2004. Such gifts were legal because they were properly reported.
Also, in 2000, Kazeminy paid in full for then-St. Paul Mayor Coleman to travel on official business to Jordan to promote ties between local companies and that Middle Eastern nation's developing information technology network. The City Council unanimously approved that arrangement.
Still a bit bewildered about all that's been going back and forth with this Texas lawsuit?
Here are the important facts:

• The lawsuit was filed by Paul McKim, a Republican from Texas. A second lawsuit with similar allegations has been filed in Delaware.


• The suitis primarily about a business McKim founded that Kazeminy now controls. It alleges Kazeminy tried to funnel $100,000 to Coleman, via a bogus consulting contract with the Hays Companies in Minneapolis, where Laurie Coleman works as a licensed insurance broker.


• The suit does not accuse the Colemans of knowing about the alleged plan or of receiving any money.


• The Hays Companies has said it does have a contract with McKim's company, but it says it's a legitimate contract and has condemned the lawsuit.

Then there is the ad war that followed.
Coleman, citing no direct evidence, accused Franken of being behind the lawsuit in numerous public statements and in a TV ad. Franken has denied that and has responded with an ad accusing Coleman of lying about that.
On Sunday night, Coleman changed his attack: He no longer said Franken was behind the suit; accused Franken of "crossing a line" by not condemning a different ad attacking Coleman over the suit.
That second ad is by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which brings us to a fact check.
Claim: Coleman called on Franken to "reject" the ad. "My anger is over an ad that's defaming my wife, and Mr. Franken, Al, rather than rejecting it, is promoting it."
Facts: Legally, Franken cannot control the content of an ad by the DSCC. Similarly, Coleman can't control the content of ads by his party's counterpart, the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Coleman emphasized this point last month when he announced he was taking down his negative campaign ads but had no control over NRSC ads attacking Franken.
Both groups have been running attack ads, and neither candidate has exercised the most powerful influence he could have: Each could demand his party's group stop spending money in the state. But don't expect that. For example, in a recent interview, Coleman said he wasn't prepared to take such an action because it amounted to unilateral disarmament.