In a great piece by Sam Stein in the Huffington Post yesterday evening, Norm Coleman’s cozy, dirt-cheap living arrangements are scrutinized. In regards to Coleman’s $600 rent (emphasis mine):
“This is a legitimate question to be asking in light of the fact that he is apparently renting from someone with an interest in his official actions as a senator,” said Mary Boyle of the good government group Common Cause. “It would be one thing if he was paying above market value and they could argue that it is included in his rent. But he is paying below market for this apartment. At a minimum [not paying utilities] would be a violation of the congressional gift ban. Certainly under no way is it okay for a member of Congress to be taking free or subsidized rent or benefits from anyone, particularly from someone you are working with.”
When the Coleman campaign is asked about this, they gave no reply (again, emphasis mine):
The Huffington Post placed more than two-dozen calls to his campaign spokesperson and Senate office over the course of several weeks. Despite leaving more than ten voice and email messages including the basic request to discuss the utilities bill, not one aide ever returned a request for comment. The Minnesota Democrat Party has, likewise, asked Coleman to provide a bill from the utility company Pepco to put the issue to rest. The Senator has not complied.
Even though much of the media has only been covering the rent, the possible violation of the congressional gift ban and the backstory of who he is living with is going to be the next big story:
But the politically touchy aspect of Coleman’s situation may be that landowner Jeff Larson, is a major player in Minnesota and D.C. politics. Larson’s firm, FLS Connect, has been paid more than $1.5 million since mid-2001 by the Senator’s political action committee and Senate campaigns. Coleman, meanwhile, has employed Larson’s wife, Dorene, and he has benefited from fundraising and voter organizing efforts arranged by FLS.
Overall, it is a great read. This story will be a lot bigger as more information comes out.
Loading ...
This is still a big story, with a bunch of sidestories that aren’t being reported in the legacy media, especially the dead-tree branch.
And one side story, is Norm’s Landlord, Jeff Larson (Chair of the Host Committee for the GOP National Convention) taking the Homestead Exemption on the property, until some concerned citizen/journalist caught it, and turned Larson in.
Why the legacy media isn’t covering this story, only goes to show - once again - that they are bought n’ paid for, by the GOP.
I’ve had utilities included in the rent several times back when I was a renter.
I’m glad that my Senator is an effective negotiator. That means he is good at his job.
Wow DtM, that’s some tasty spin… Can you outline a few specifics where these skills you value in your Senator have made your life better? Thanks.
Typically, Republicans do not support govenrnment waste, unless it is Republicans causing the waste. DtM, you are so proud of the deal Coleman negotiated to get an apartment at below market rate with utilities to boot. Do you care that he gave up 50 Million of tax payer money to his buddy in the fornm of governemnt services in order to secure the deal?
I am sure you did get utilities included in your rent, but you probably did not get below market rent AND utilities included. You’re not a dumb guy, but your argument makes you lose credibility.
I just love how Republicans are against things like affirmative action for the underpreivileged classes, but they defend incompentant but rich and connected white poeople getting jobs they do not deserve. This is the same thing. I am sure DtM is against section 8 housing for the needy, but if a rich, connected white guy needs cheap housing at the taxpayer expense, that is awesome!
I’ve had utilities included in my rent and gotten cheap rent for a place too.
But then again, neither DTM nor myself are subject to the congressional gift ban… so maybe both of our comments are non sequitur…
I was making the comment tongue in cheek.
Bite down hard.
I just verified - thrugh PepCo, the utility - that the townhouse in D.C. has two - count ‘em, TWO - meters.
http://www.mnblue.com/node/1993
“But I digress. There really are two questions that are very important:
1 - In what name is the billing account for Norm’s rental unit in; and
2 - who is paying the tab.
So now it’s ‘fess up time, for Norm. And not only does he need to show a bill in his name, he needs to show a cancelled check, too.”
This is big.
While it would be good for Coleman to open up about his rental arrangement there has yet to be any verifiable facts that show he is paying substantially below market rate for rent or that he is responsible for the utilities. While two meters make it possible he is responsible for utilities it does not mean that the metered service is under his control or measures the utility for only the space he is renting.
While questioning the arrangement is a good thing so far only the possibility of a violation has been shown. Not any evidence that it has actually occurred. Getting any politician on an ethics violation is a very good thing. But if it ends up being nothing more than mud slinging it will only increase people’s cynicism.
KH, these are the facts: the area Norm is occupying is a distinct and legal and licensed rental unit, and the utility (PepCo) confirmed there are two meters. The electric is seperate. Period. That’s the way it works, in D.C., to get a Certificate of Occupancy. I was told it was very rare, and only in cases of “grandfathered in” that a Certificate of Occupancy would be issued with the seperate unit NOT having seperately metered electric.
Nice try, though.
Should be very easy for Coleman to produce a utility bill and a canceled check. After all, don’t we all keep records of things like that?
I am sure the Senate Ethics Committee can look into this next month.
As Ricky would say, Norm has some splainin to do.
TPT,
It wasn’t a try. That information was not presented. Even if it was, “rare” and “only if” are the phrases that show you do not have anything definitive.
On top of that it has yet to be shown that what he is paying is low for what he is receiving. I was not aware of a law that stated that any elected official renting an apartment needs to pay utilities separate from rent.
I agree that there is most likely something wrong and would like it to come out. There just is no smoking gun, yet. His post-facto lease and utilities check are the most damning evidence to date. The key would still be to show, in a standardized and unbiased way, that he is paying substantially under market rate. Without that it just “looks like something” or could be blown off as “sloppy book keeping”. Not that I would buy it.
KH, while your arguments are technically correct, Coleman’s actions since this story broke clearly stretch credibility.