Longtime denizens of the internets will recall when the best way to retrieve obscure but relevant information was by using a gopher. The technology took its name from the University of Minnesota, where it was invented. Well, today the gophers are at it again. 

A lawsuit, first filed on Monday, alleges that a close supporter schemed to funnel $100,000 to Senator Norm Coleman via payments to his insurance-agent wife, because "U.S. senators don't make [expletive deleted]." The first three payments were made; the CEO of the supporter's corporation refused to make the final installment. He alleges that "Laurie Coleman never provided any type of services or products to DMT, nor has any other person on behalf of Hays provided any type of services to DMT." He's mad, because he lost his job at least in part over this.

Well, that certainly sounds suspicious. Now, Laurie Coleman's employer, the Hays Companies, has offered its explanation: they have "a fee arrangement with them [Deep Marine] ... to provide insurance advice with them. I don't want to go any further than that."

Insurance advice, eh? That's a pretty sweet deal. You'll note that the statement confirms what's already been documented - that DMT was making payments to Hays - without going any further. In fact, they specifically say they won't go any further. They don't, for example, claim that the advice was actually provided. That the contract was routine. That there's nothing to see here. The lawsuit, I should note, points out that DMT actually used a different company - AON - for all of its insurance services, and that Hays is not even licensed in Texas, where DMT is based. It also alleges that the document codifying the "arrangement" was retroactively fabricated by DMT's owner and that the CEO was coerced into signing it, once it became clear that the payments were likely to be an issue.

So what does Coleman have to say? His spokeswoman issued a statement: "This is a vicious, defamatory attack on the senator and his wife less than one week before the election." Which, aside from the word 'defamatory,' is certainly true. Note what's not included in this statement: any specific rebuttal of particular claims, a defense of the arrangement, or an identification of which aspects of the allegations are defamatory.

This is a race that was hanging in the balance before today. Now, it's reasonable to project that Coleman is going to lose. Even if these latest allegations have only a marginal effect, it should be enough to seal his fate. And based on the evidence made public so far, he should probably also retain counsel. Perhaps an experienced attorney like Brendan Sullivan would be able to help.

UPDATE: The AP secures some stronger denials. From Hays, which says it provides risk management consultation, "We stand by our reputation as leaders in our industry and will not engage in empty speculation that is clearly meant to interfere with the election." And from Coleman's campaign manager, that he "absolutely" denies the payments were arranged by Kazeminy to help the Colemans. From all this, we have confirmation that the payments were made. Hays doesn't deny that Laurie Coleman was on the account, so we can safely assume she benefited financially. 

Let me add in the requisite backstory here. Kazeminy and Hays have already been the subject of reporting at Harper's and elsewhere. Kazeminy was alleged to have bought suits for Coleman; Hays executives and their families have provided significant financial support for the Coleman campaign, and it's not at all clear what Laurie Coleman's qualifications for a job there might be. In a commission-based industry, just getting a job isn't enough - you've got to drum up business. We don't know what happened here. We don't know, for example, if the allegations are true. Or if they were, if the Colemans were aware of what Kazeminy was up to.  But there's an awful lot of smoke here, and an aggrieved ex-CEO who'd potentially face charges if he's sworn falsely. If this story is false, that should be fairly easy to demonstrate. But I suspect we'll hear a more and more angry denials without a great many more facts coming forward.

If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend this' link. You can find more analysis on my blog, or subscribe by clicking "Follow Me" on the right. As always, I welcome your comments and corrections, and thank you for your feedback.