There's a lot of 'coulds' and 'maybes' in that story... presumably why it's in an editorial section. It seems to me to be trying to use some 3rd parties dodgy dealings to attack another person; if you read it, it never connects -or tries to - Al Franken (he's the one that Fox tried to sue, isn't he? For use of 'fair and balanced') for example, to any actual knowledge of or involvement in the alleged dodginess, yet decides to blame him instead.
Presumably for sake of a visible target; I note the 2 people praised for noting the story in the article are themselves noted right-wing/conservative peeps with a vested interest in it. There's also an implication that the source of the money - if it was a source of money at all, which is still an allegation from anonymous sources - didn't have a say in this (when it could have even been an instigator for all the information given).
And of course it's just a general partisan opinion piece to 'attack the other side' as seen so often (on both sides, may I add). There's no actual provative facts in it, just allegations yet-to-be substantiated. I'd imagine under libel laws, an actual news article would need to have had more factual contents and an adequate representation of dissenting opinion.
