REPORT TO THE SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE ON THE INVESTIGATION OF STATE SENATOR KENT SORENSON October 2, 2013 Mark E, Weinhardt, Independent Counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee WEINHARDT & LOGAN, P.C. 2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450 Des Moines, IA 50312 (615) 288-0407 mweinhardt@weinhardtlogan.com www.weinhardtlogan.com Volume I o2019210D00)L INTRODUCTION. Il. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. .. I. | SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS. IV. _ INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY... V. WHAT DOES “PROBABLE CAUSE” MEAN?.. VL COUNT I: THE ALLEGED THEFT FROM A COMPUTER. A. B. ic (o2018210.p0c) TABLE OF CONTENTS ominneniensensneenies® Summary of the Allegation... ‘Summary of Senator Sorenson’s Response. Factual Findings.. 1. The Players. a, Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators. AB b. Barbara Heki. ¢. Eric Woolson. 19 4. Christopher Dorr..... 2 Wesley Enos... f Tony Eastman...... g Bob Heckman. .. hb. Aaron Dorr... 2. Chris Dorr claims to have acted unintentionally and alone. 3. After the list was taken. . Determination Regarding Probable Cause. 1. Theft...2, Criminal conspiracy..... VII. COUNT Il: EMPLOYMENT BY BACHMANN FOR PRESIDENT/ MICHELEPAC..... A. Summary of the Allegation. B, Summary of Senator Sorenson’s Response. Ss C. Factual Findings...... 1. The Players. a. MichelePAC.. b. Bachmann For President. 37 c. Guy Short/C&M Strategies, Ine... Pay 4. Grassroots Strategy, Ine... 38 2. Senator Sorenson joins the effort to elect Representative Bachmann as President of the United States... 238 3. Bachmann For President is organized and contracts with C&M Strategies. 4, Senator Sorenson’s role with the Bachmann campaign, 5. The cireuitous flow of funds. 6. Senator Sorenson’s understanding of his compensation and its implications under Rule 6 of the Senate Code of Ethics. .. 7. Senator Sorenson’s negotiations with the Ron Paul CAMPAILM. eee 8 Senator Sorenson jumps to the Ron Paul campaign... 9. Payments to Senator Sorenson after the Iowa caucuses. D. _ Determination Regarding Probable Cause. eo {02019210D0c)1. Rule 6 of the Senate Code of Ethics... a, The meaning of “employment” in Rule 6 b. The type of political entity from which the funds originated. ... () — MichelePAC.. (ii) Bachmann For President... 68 2. Senator Sorenson’s false denials of compensation, .....neennTl a. Felonious misconduct: false entry. .. 2 (i) Public employee..... 72 (i) False entry... 73 VIII. CONCLUSIONS. {o2019210.00C) (ii) Authorized by law..... Felonious misconduct: falsifying a public record. @ — Falsifying (i) Public record. 2791. INTRODUCTION. ‘The Chief Justice of the Towa Supreme Court appointed the undersigned to investigate two counts of a complaint (the “Complaint”) brought before the lowa Senate Ethics Committee (the “Committee”) against State Senator Kent Sorenson. The Complaint arose from the Senator's involvement with the campaign to elect Representative Michele Bachmann as President of the United States. The Complaint alleged that Senator Sorenson committed three separate instances of wrongdoing that violated the Senate Code of Bthies (the “Code”), As independent special counsel to the Committee, the undersigned’s charge, pursuant to Iowa Code §§ 68B.31(7)(a) and 68B.31A and Rule 18(g)(4) of the Code, is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that Senator Sorenson committed a violation of the Code based on two of those instances. (The Committee summarily dismissed the third instance.). Following an investigation, the undersigned has determined that there is not probable cause to believe that Senator Sorenson violated the Code regarding Count I of the Complaint alleging the theft of a list from a campaign coworker’s computer. Regarding Count I of the Complaint, however, the undersigned has determined that there is probable cause to believe that Senator Sorenson violated the Code with regard to his accepting compensation from committees associated with Representative Bachmann in 0201921000)exchange for his work on the Bachmann campaign. This is the undersigned’s report of those findings.’ ot PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 28, 2013, Peter Waldron, formerly a staff member of the lowa campaign to elect Representative Michele Bachmann as President of the United States, filed the Complaint against Senator Kent Sorenson, The Complaint alleged that Senator Sorenson violated the Senate Code of Ethics in three respects. First, it alleged that Senator Sorenson violated Rule 16(a) of the Code by committing the crime of theft. ‘The alleged theft was of an electronic database of names from a computer belonging to a campaign staff person who worked at the Bachmann campaign office in Urbandale, Iowa (“Count 1’), Second, the Complaint alleged that Senator Sorenson violated Rule 6 of the Code by accepting compensation from the Bachmann For President (“BFP”) organization and/or a political action committee associated with Representative Bachmann called MichelePAC. The Complaint further alleged that Senator Sorenson conspired with others to conceal the compensation he was receiving for serving as the Iowa State Chair for Representative Bachmann’s campaign (“Count II"). Third, the Complaint alleged that Senator Sorenson 1 ‘Throughout this report, the independent special counsel is referred to as “we” and “our,” even though the special counsel is an individual, Mark E. Weinhardt. Our use of the plural pronoun/adjective denotes the fact that Mr. Weinhardt’s firm, Weinhardt & Logan, P.C., has worked on this matter as a team effort, and the conclusions of this report are the conclusions of the attorneys working on this investigation. (o2018210.p0c) aCeviolated Rule 11 of the Code by failing to make a timely disclosure of a business in which he was involved (“Count III”).? ‘On February 8, 2013, Senator Sorenson filed a response to the Complaint denying all ofits allegations (the “Initial Response”). On February 13, 2013, the Committee met and reviewed the Complaint. ‘The Committee determined under Rule 18(g)(2) of the Code that Count III of the Complaint failed to state a claim and would be dismissed. With regard to the other two counts of the Complaint, the Committee determined that it would seek additional information, from either the Complainant or other sources, before the Committee made a determination about how to proceed The Committee met again on April 17, 2013 and again deferred action on Counts 1 and II until additional information was gathered. On April 25, 2013, the Committee received an additional affidavit from a witness in support of the Complaint.’ Shortly thereafter, the Committee received an additional responsive statement and four affidavits from Senator Sorenson (the “Supplemental Response”). The Committee voted on May 1, 2013, pursuant to Iowa Code § 68B,31(7)(a) and Rule 18(g)(4) of the Code, to request that the Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court An Appendix of exhibits is submitted with this report. Wherever an “Exhibit” is referenced, itis an Exhibit to the Appendix. A copy of the Complaint is Exhibit 1. 3 Senator Sorenson’s Initial Response is Exhibit 2. ‘ ‘The affidavit is Exhibit 3. a Senator Sorenson’s Supplemental Response and the affidavits submitted with it are Exhibit 4. {e2019210D0c) “7.appoint an independent special counsel to investigate the allegations contained in Counts and II of the Complaint, On May 10, 2013, the Chief Justice appointed the undersigned as independent special counsel, and thereafter the undersigned commenced an investigation Ill. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS. Count I of the Complaint alleges that Senator Sorenson committed the crime of theft by taking a politically valuable electronic database of homeschooler names and contact information from the computer of a fellow campaign worker, Barbara Heki, at BFP’s Urbandale office in late 2011. It does appear likely that Christopher (“Chris”) Dorr in fact removed a database of names from Ms. Heki’s computer without Ms. Heki’s knowledge or authorization, BFP sent emails to the names on that list to promote Representative Bachmann’s candidacy. We have found no evidence, however, that Senator Sorenson personally removed the list of names from Ms. Heki’s computer. Chris Dorr was another BFP campaign worker, a friend of Senator Sorenson, and Senator Sorenson’s Senate clerk. Mr, Dorr has given multiple statements claiming responsibility for taking the list from Ms, Heki’s computer but contending that he did so under circumstances that he believed were innocent. He gave one of those statements to us. While there is no evidence that Senator Sorenson directly removed the list from Ms. Heki’s computer, there is evidence, mostly in the nature of statements by ot attributed to Senator Sorenson, that suggests that Senator Sorenson was involved in a criminal conspiracy with one or more other persons concerning the list. The objects of the conspiracy were to remove the list from Ms. Heki’s computer without her knowledge (e201s210.00)and to make use of the list to BEP’s and Senator Sorenson’s own advantage while knowing that the list had been stolen, Senator Sorenson in his written responses to the Complaint disputes the clearest statement that is attributed to him. Assuming Mr. Dorr took the list, a fact we cannot disprove, the evidence is conflicting whether he did so under circumstances he believed were innocent, Evidence regarding the date the list was taken and what Mr. Dorr did with the list is also conflicting A review of all of the evidence suggests that Senator Sorenson and Chris Dorr may have been involved in a criminal conspiracy to take the NICHE list from Ms. Heki’s computer and use it for the Bachmann campaign’s and Senator Sorenson’s personal advantage. Evidence suggesting a conclusion, however, does not prove that conclusion. Here it does not meet the level of “clear and convincing” evidence required for a finding of probable cause that Senator Sorenson committed a crime in connection with the Heki list. Thus the undersigned finds that there is not probable cause to proceed on Count I. Count II of the Complaint alleges that Senator Sorenson violated Rule 6 of the Code by accepting personal compensation from BFP and from a political action committee (“PAC”) associated with Representative Bachmann, MichelePAC, in exchange for serving as the Bachmann campaign’s Iowa State Chair. ‘The Complaint farther alleges that Senator Sorenson conspired with others to conceal that compensation. In connection with this allegation, we find there is probable cause to believe that Senator Sorenson violated the Senate Code of Ethics in two respects. It is manifestly clear that in early 2011, Senator Sorenson negotiated for and obtained compensation-that ultimately reached $7,500 per month-from Bachmann {e2019210.D0¢)campaign entities in exchange for his support of Representative Bachmann and service as the campaign’s Towa State Chair. Senator Sorenson and others structured the compensation through a circuitous route. MichelePAC, and later BFI , paid money to an entity in Colorado known as C&M Strategies, Inc. (“C&M”) that had contracted to provide services to MichelePAC and BFP. C&M in turn paid the money to a corporation wholly owned by Senator Sorenson, Grassroots Strategy, Inc. (“GSI”), Senator Sorenson took the bulk of the money that C&M paid to GSI as income for himself. During the course of these events, Senator Sorenson made statements to various people acknowledging that he was receiving compensation in exchange for his support for and work for Representative Bachmann, He also made-including in an. email attached as an exhibit here-statements showing that he believed that Senate Ethics Rules in fact prohibited him from receiving such compensation. As further evidence of Senator Sorenson’s belief that he was being compensated for work on the Bachmann campaign, we have considered his behavior regarding the Ron Paul for President campaign, to which Senator Sorenson bolted from the Bachmann campaign on December 28, 2011, shortly before the Iowa caucuses. Senator Sorenson discussed with others his possible defection to the Ron Paul campaign before he made that move and, in some cases, invoked money as a reason to make the switch. Shortly before he went to the Ron Paul campaign, Senator Sorenson received a $25,000 check payable to GSI from a senior official with the Ron Paul campaign, He did not cash it ‘After the caucuses, however, GSI received a series of wire transfers from an entity in Maryland called ICT, Inc. totaling $73,000, an amount that would equal $25,000 plus o2019210.00c) -10-$8,000 per month for six months. We have not been able to connect those transfers directly to the Ron Paul campaign, but the circumstances surrounding them are deeply suspicious. For his work on the Bachmann campaign, Senator Sorenson received money from two entities: MichelePAC and BEP, We believe it was a plain violation of Senate Ethics Rule 6 for Senator Sorenson to accept compensation from MichelePAC to work on Representative Bachmann’s behalf, Senator Sorenson’s compensation for his work on the Bachmann campaign originated with MichelePAC in early 2011, before BFP had been formed, and likely did so again in late 2011, when BFP ran out of money. At least as to the earlier time frame, the evidence is clear that Senator Sorenson knew that his compensation was coming from MichelePAC. While Senator Sorenson’s compensation from a PAC such as MichelePAC clearly violated Rule 6, his compensation from BFP presents a question of interpretation of Rule 6. Specifically, there is a question whether compensation from a presidential candidate's committee violates Rule 6. We will describe arguments on both sides of this question, but we believe that the Committee will need to decide the interpretation of its own rule. If accepting compensation from a presidential campaign committee violates Rule 6, however, it is clear that Senator Sorenson violated Rule 6, Apart from Rule 6, we find that there is probable cause under Count Il to believe that Senator Sorenson violated Rule 16(a) of the Code, which makes a serious violation of the criminal law a violation of the Code. In his two written responses to the Complaint that he submitted to the Committee, Senator Sorenson categorically denied being {02019210,p0c) -ll-compensated for his role in the Bachmann campaign. We find probable cause to believe that those statements were false and that Senator Sorenson knew they were false when he made them, Because he was a public employee at the time he made the statements, and because the statements are contained in public records, we find there is probable cause to believe that Senator Sorenson’s statements constitute the crime of felonious misconduct in office in violation of lowa Code § 721.1 IV. INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY. In the course of the investigation we have reviewed in detail the material submitted to the Committee by the Complainant, Peter Waldron, and by Senator Sorenson, In addition, we have obtained and reviewed over 5,500 pages of documents from a variety of sources, including Senator Sorenson himself, a bank in Indianola where he maintains his business account, the Urbandale Police Department,” the Office of Congressional Ethics, the Bachmann For President campaign, the litigants in a lawsuit concerning the Heki list, and a number of witnesses. In some cases documents were shared with us voluntarily; in other cases we obtained them through subpoenas. ‘As part of the investigation, we interviewed the following witnesses: David Cohen, Chris Dorr, Tony Eastman, Wesley Enos, Susan Geddes, Robert Heckman, Barbara Heki, Cherie Johnson, Jolanda Kesari, Mike Marshall, Andrew Parrish, David Polyansky, Peter Waldron, and Eric Woolson. the Urbandale Police Department complied with a subpoena issued by the undersigned investigator. In deference to the confidentiality of the department’s ongoing investigation, we have not publicly disclosed documents received pursuant to this subpoena 02019210000) -12-We sought, but were unable to obtain, interviews of several other witnesses. Of note, Guy Short, the principal of C&M and a central player in this matter, refused interview requests through his counsel on more than one occasion, although he did produce documents to us regarding Senator Sorenson. Representative Bachmann is, candidly, not a critical witness in this matter, but we did seek an interview of her. She initially refused through counsel to participate in an interview but later reconsidered that refusal. We had not received a definitive answer from counsel when this report went to press. There were also wi nesses connected with the Bachmann campaign whom we elected not to interview because they had previously been interviewed by the Office of Congre: sional Ethics and/or the Urbandale Police Department during their investigations, and we determined that additional interviews of the witnesses were unnecessary. In the course of the investigation, pursuant to a subpoena, we commenced a deposition of Senator Sorenson. Though the deposition had been scheduled for a time span of five and one-half hours on the day it started, Senator Sorenson left after approximately two hours, citing a conflicting real estate business engagement.’ The parties agreed to continue Senator Sorenson’s deposition four days later. On the appointed day, Senator Sorenson appeared, but he refused to participate in the deposition any further on the basis that he was asserting his right against self-inerimination under the 7 Exhibit 5 (Deposition of Kent Sorenson (“Sorenson Dep.”) Vol. 1) at 74-75. {o2019210,00c) -13-Fifth Amendment.’ Similarly, Senator Sorenson refused to produce his legislative computer, iPad and iPhone for inspection by a forensic computer expert based upon the Fifth Amendment.” Our investigation also included an extensive review of public and media sources regarding the history of the Michele Bachmann campaign and Senator Sorenson’s involvement in i Senator Sorenson’s departure from that campaign to the Ron Paul campaign, and publicly available sources regarding Senator Sorenson's background. We also researched a number of legal questions relevant to the investigation, and the results of much of that research are present in this report. V. WHAT DOES “PROBABLE CAUSE” MEAN? ‘As noted at the outset of this report, the undersigned’s task is “to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that” Senator Sorenson violated the Code “and whether an evidentiary hearing on the complaint should be held.” Iowa Code § 68B.31(7)(a). As an investigation such as this one under Iowa Code Chapter 68B is relatively novel, a preliminary question we needed to answer was: How much evidence is enough to constitute “probable cause”? The term “probable cause” is commonly used in the criminal law as, for example, the yardstick to determine whether a police officer has enough evidence to make an arrest oor whether there is enough evidence to justify a search notwithstanding a person’s Fourth Exhibit 6 (Sorenson Dep. Vol. I) at 95-102. e Td. at 102-103, 106, o2019210,00c) -14-Amendment rights.'” We believe, however, that the standard of proof required for a finding of “probable cause” in this investigation is higher than that required for a criminal arrest or a criminal search, If a senator is brought to a hearing before the Senate Ethics Committee, any violation of the Code must be proven at that hearing by “clear and convincing evidence.” Iowa Code § 68B.31(8); Senate Code of Ethies, Rule 19(¢). “Clear and convincing evidence” is an intermediate burden of proof less stringent than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, “but more burdensome than a preponderance of the evidence” required in civil cases. In re B.B., 826 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Iowa 2013). Clear and convincing evidence “means that there must be no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of a particular conclusion drawn from the evidence.” Jd, (quoting In re LP., 574 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa 1998) Under the governing statute, an independent special counsel such as the undersigned is not asked simply to determine whether there is enough evidence to justify commencing a proceeding, such as with an arrest in a criminal case. Rather, the special ° See, e.g., State v, Lewis, 675 N.W.2d 516, 525 (lowa 2004) (stating in the context of criminal arrests, ““Probable cause exists if the totality of the circumstances as viewed by a reasonable and prudent person would lead that person to believe that a crime has been or is being committed and that the arrestee committed or is committing it.”) (quoting State v. Bumpus, 459 N.W.2d 619, 624 (lowa 1990); State v. Everett, 214 N.W.2d 214, 217 (lowa 1974) (stating in the context of a challenge to search warrant, “Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances presented to the judicial officer are sufficient in themselves to justify the belief of a man of reasonable caution that an offense has been or is being committed.”). o20192t0,p0c} -15-counsel is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the violation at the subsequent hearing: If, after investigation, the independent special counsel determines evidence exists which, if proven, would support a finding of a violation of this Chapter, a finding of probable cause shall be made and reported to the Ethics Committee, and a hearing shall be ordered by the Ethics Committee as provided in § 68B.31. Towa Code § 68B.31A. Accordingly, we conclude that the undersigned should only find “probable cause” if we believe there is sufficient evidence to prove a violation by Senator Sorenson under the “clear and convincing evidence” standard described above, We have evaluated the evidence accordingly. VI. COUNT I: THE ALLEGED THEFT FROM A COMPUTER. A. Summary of the Allegation. Count I of the Complaint makes its allegation by reference to an attached affidavit. The substantive part of the allegation states as follows: [Aln Affidavit, dated September 4, 2012, given by Bachmann For President (“BFP”) Iowa Campaign Manager Eric Woolson discloses that Senator Sorenson admitted on or about November 10, 2011 [to] taking a private home school list from Mrs. Barbara Heki’s private laptop computer in her private office. Senator Sorenson had neither the authority nor permission from Mrs. Heki to remove this private list from her personal laptop.'" The Complaint alleges that this is a violation of Senate Ethics Rule 16(a) and quotes that portion of the Rule providing that “a violation of criminal law ... if the allegation constitutes a serious misdemeanor or greater ...” is a violation of the Code of ' Bxhibit 1 at 2. (o2o1s210.0c) -16-Ethics.'? The implication, not explicitly stated, is that the “taking” of the homeschool list ‘was a theft of an item having a monetary value between $1,000 and $10,000 and thus constituting at least a serious misdemeanor. See lowa Code § 714.2(2).. The affidavit referenced in the Complaint and attached to it does not in fact state that Senator Sorenson personally took the list from Ms. Heki’s computer but instead attributes statements to him suggesting that he was part of a group that did so. B. Summary of Senator Sorenson’s Response. Senator Sorenson’s Initial Response to the Complaint did not directly address the Complaint’s allegation that he participated in taking a list from Ms. Heki’s computer. The response avoided a direct answer to the allegation on the basis of a then-pending civil lawsuit by the Heki family dealing with the same subject matter. In pertinent part, Senator Sorenson’s response stated: While there is a great deal of information I could provide to the contrary of the claims laid out in this complaint, under advice of counsel, 1 will save that for my civil case, Needless to say the statements in Mr. Woolson’s affidavit will be impeached aggressively.'> Senator Sorenson's Supplemental Response, however, directly and categorically denied the allegations of the Complaint: “I never took, participated in, or directed the o taking of any list from Ms, Heki’s computer or the computer of anyone. 2 og Exhibit 2 at 2 Exhibit 4 at 1. (o219210.p0C) iteC. Factual Findings. 1 ‘The Players. Several individuals involved with the Bachmann campaign need to be identified in order to understand the issues surrounding the taking of the list. a. Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators. Network of lowa Christian Home Educators (“NICHE”) is the largest statewide homeschool organization in lowa.'* It maintains a database of homeschoolers and people who are interested in homeschooling.’* NICHE is protective of the privacy of its members and its database of names.'? It was well known among the Bachmann campaign's lowa office that the NICHE database was confidential and “off limits” to the campaign.'® The BFP campaign sent emails to the database on November 10, 2011."° b. Barbara Heki. Barbara Heki was employed by the Bachmann campaign as the Home School Coalition Director.” She and her husband were active in the home school community Exhibit 52 (www.home-school.com/groups/IA.html). '6Id.; Exhibit 14 (Heki Interview) at 2. " See, e.g., Exhibit 54 (www.homeschool/iowa.org) (“Our database is private and confidential.”) a Exhibit 21 (Woolson Interview) at 2; Exhibit 11 (Enos Interview) at 3; Exhibit 14 (Heki Interview) at 2. 1» 2-3, Exhibit 1 (Complaint-Woolson Affidavit) at 7; Exhibit 21 (Woolson Interview) at 2» Exhibit 14 (Heki Interview) at 2. o201s210.00C} -18-and were members of NICHE’s Board of Directors.” As a board member, Ms. Heki had a copy of NICHE’s database. Senator Sorenson and Wes Enos interviewed Ms. Heki for her homeschool outreach position with the Bachmann campaign.” Mr. Enos and Ms. Heki recall discussing the fact that Ms. Heki possessed the NICHE list during her interview." Mr, Enos and Ms. Heki also recall Ms. Heki explaining during her interview with Mr, Sorenson and Mr. Enos that the NICHE database was confidential such that she could not disclose it to the campaign or use it for campaign purposes.”* Ms, Heki blamed herself for weeks after the Bachmann campaign sent emails to the NICHE homeschool list, thinking perhaps she accidentally sent the list to someone.”* Staffers describe her as visibly upset at the campaign office.” G Eric Woolson. Eric Woolson began working on the Bachmann campaign in mid-September 2011 as a communications consultant.* He became Campaign Manager in late October and ee 2 og 2 Exhibit 11 (Enos Interview) at 3; Exhibit 14 (Heki Interview) at 3 ey 3s Id, In a 2012 interview by the Urbandale Police Department, Senator Sorenson disclaimed knowledge of the fact that Ms. Heki had access to the NICHE list. 26 Exhibit 20 (Waldron Interview) at 5-6, a Exhibit 21 (Woolson Interview) at 4,5; Exhibit 20 (Waldron Interview) at 5-6. 28 1 Exhibit 1 (Complaint-Woolson Affidavit) at 7; Exhibit 21 (Woolson Interview) at o2019210,D0¢} -19-remained in that position through the caucuses.” Mr. Woolson previously worked with ® Mr. Woolson knew from his ‘Ms. Heki on the 2008 Huckabee presidential campaign.™ earlier work with Ms. Heki that she had a copy of the NICHE list but that the list was proprietary such that she could not disclose it to the campaign." Mr. Woolson submitted an affidavit during the course of the civil litigation regarding the taking of the list. ‘The pertinent parts of Mr. Woolson’s September 4, 2012 affidavit are as follows: 2. ... Nov. 10, 2011 - was the first day I heard anything about this situation, 3. I went to Sen. Kent Sorenson’s office to tell him because he was the campaign’s state chair. 4, Kent smiled at me and said, “Do you want to know how it happened?” 5, I'said, “No,” and tried to back out of his office. 6. Kent said, “We took it.” Kent said they weren’t getting anything from Barb (Heki), so when she stepped out of the office they took it. 7. Kent said, “We stood watch.” 8. I went back to my office and immediately called Guy Short, the campaign’s national political director, and told him we have a serious problem and we need to make this right. I told him that Kent Sorenson had said he and others took the database from Barb’s computer. 9. Guy said he'd take care of it. 2 Exhibit 1 (Complaint-Woolson Affidavit) at 7. ela 0 og {02019210 p0c}) -20-11, That same evening or the next, Wes Enos, the Iowa Campaign Deputy Manager, told me that I was going to be getting a phone call from Bill ‘McGinley, the campaign’s corporate lawyer. I did.” Senator Sorenson did not tell Mr. Woolson who else stood wateh with him during the taking of the NICHE list. Mr. Woolson reportedly immediately recognized the serious problem at hand and sought to report it up the chain-of-command within the 2 campaign. Mr. Woolson reported feeling conflicted by the confidentiality warning he ived from the Bachmann campaign’s legal counsel not to disclose what he knew and by his personal desire to tell Ms. Heki what Senator Sorenson had told him.** 4. Christopher Dorr. Chris Dorr was a paid member of the field staff of the Bachmann campaign. Senator Sorenson hired him and negotiated his salary in that regard.*> Mr, Dorr was Senator Sorenson’s legislative clerk during the 2011, 2012 and 2013 legislative sessions. He assisted with Senator Sorenson’s 2010 campaign and “didn’t have anything [else] going on” when Sorenson won the election and needed a legislative clerk.” Mr. Dorr is a friend of Senator Sorenson.** Mr. Dorr and Tony Eastman 7 Exhibit 1 (Complaint-Woolson Affidavit) at 7. Exhibit 21 (Woolson Interview) at 3-4. Md at, 7 Exhibit 25 (Email between Sorenson, Short, and Parrish, May 17, 2011); Exhibit 3 (Parrish Affidavit) at 7. %6 Exhibit 9 (Dorr Interview) at 2. a Id. As Mr. Dorr explained during his interview, he comes from a “politically active family” in northwest lowa. He was homeschooled and “believes” he graduated {o2ms210D0c) -21-(described below) are also friends.” Mr. Dorr, Senator Sorenson and Tony Eastman hunt deer together, for example.” e Wesley Enos. Wesley (“Wes”) Enos was the Deputy Campaign Manager of the Bachman campaign. Senator Sorenson hired him to work for the campaign.’ Having first met Senator Sorenson during Sorenson’s campaign for the 2008 Iowa House seat, Mr. Enos considered himself an “informal advisor” to Senator Sorenson. He worked with Ms. Heki on Bob Vander Plaats’ 2010 campaign for Governor of Iowa. Like Mr. Woolson, Mr. Enos knew from his prior work with Ms. Heki that she had a copy of the NICHE list, but that the list was proprietary such that Ms. Heki would not use it for the campaign Mr. Enos and Senator Sorenson interviewed Ms, Heki for her position with the BFP campaign.” Like Ms, Heki, Mr. Enos recalls discussing Ms. Heki’s possession of the list and the fact that the list was proprietary during her interview.** Mr. Enos provided an from high school around 2001. From 2001 to 2010, he worked a variety of part-time and seasonal construction and harvest jobs. id, *%° Eastman Interview by Urbandale Police Department, dated October 25, 2012. @ Id.; Exhibit 10 (Eastman Interview) at 2. a Exhibit 3 (Parrish Affidavit) at 7. 2 Exhibit 11 (Enos Interview) at 3. og. 402019210D0c) -22-affidavit to the Senate Ethics Committee supporting Senator Sorenson’s denial of compensation from the Bachmann campaign.* f. Tony Eastman. Tony Eastman was also a field officer for the Bachmann campaign. ** Senator Sorenson hired him to work for the campaign. Mr. Eastman first met Senator Sorenson when the Eastman and Sorenson families attended the same church in 2002 or 2003."° Mr. Eastman volunteered on Sorenson’s 2008 campaign for the lowa House and helped him decide to run for the State Senate in 2010.7 Though they are still friends, Mr. Eastman previously considered Senator Sorenson to be his best friend.* g Bob Heckman. Bob Heckman was a Senior Advisor to the Bachmann campaign. During October or November of 2011, Mr. Heckman reportedly had a conversation with Senator Sorenson in the hallway of the BFP Urbandale campaign office about the campaign's 2° lack of success in recruiting home schoo! volunteers.” Mr. Heckman said something close to, “I wish we had a really good list,” to which Senator Sorenson replied, “Well, Exhibit 4 (Supplemental Response-Enos Affidavit) at 8. - Exhibit 10 (Eastman Interview) at 2. “6 Exhibit 10 (Eastman Interview) at 1. ui idk “ Id, at 1-2. * ‘This information comes from a transcript of Mr. Heckman’s interview by the Urbandale Police Department in 2012; see also Exhibit 13 (Heckman Interview) at 3. {o2019210.0C) -23-Barb’s got a good list. She just won’t share it with us.”’ Senator Sorenson told Mr. Heckman that he knew where Barb’s list was located.*! Senator Sorenson said, “I’m going to come in on a Sunday night and take it off her computer.”** Mr, Heckman remembered Senator Sorenson specifying a Sunday night “because she’d be at church.”** h. Aaron Dorr, Aaron Dorr is the older brother of Chris Dorr. Aaron Dorr is the Executive Director of the Iowa Gun Owners Association.** The lowa Republican reported that on October 29, 2011, Aaron Dorr sent an email to a small group including Senator Sorenson and Chris Dorr regarding changes Aaron Dorr made to a memo he planned to submit to the Ron Paul campaign proposing the terms of an agreement for Senator Sorenson and Chris Dorr to jump to the Ron Paul campaign.** The “ aron Dorr Memo,” a copy of which appears in the article, contains a detailed list of Senator Sorenson’s compensation demands and the alleged value the Ron Id. a Id. 2 Id. id ee Exhibit 10 (Eastman Interview) at 3. Sd. se Exhibit 51 (www.iowarepublican.com/2013/the-payoff-details-revealed-on- Sorensons-deal-with-ron-paul) at 10, ‘The article also provides a copy of the final memo that Aaron Dorr emailed to Ron Paul representatives later that same day. Id, at 10-13. {o2018210.p00) -24-Paul campaign would receive in exchange for the demands.*’ The memo contains a salary demand for Chris Dorr as well.* Though it relates to Senator Sorenson's compensation from the Ron Paul campaign, several portions of the Aaron Dorr Memo are relevant to Count I of the Complaint. Seemingly relevant to the taking of the NICHE list from Ms. Hel computer, the memo offers as follows: 3. Home-school connections. Of course you've got your own. “Homeschoolers for RP” program but we are in possession of the list of the main Iowa home-school group here in Iowa allowing for targeted home-school mail.” ‘The Aaron Dorr memo does not refer to the NICHE list by name. It refers, however, to the “main Iowa home-school group|’s}” list. Because NICHE is the largest Iowa homeschool group, we believe a fair reading of the memo could indicate that Senator Sorenson was in possession of the NICHE list on October 29, 2011, Even if Senator Sorenson was not in personal possession of the list, another fair reading of the Aaron Dorr memo could indicate that Senator Sorenson knew the Dorr brothers possessed the list and were using the list to negotiate his compensation package with the Ron Paul campaign. 2. Chris Dorr claims to have acted unintentionally and alone. Chris Dorr has given multiple statements claiming responsibility for taking the NICHE list from Ms, Heki’s computer, but contending that he did so innocently, Mr. 7 ig 8 Id. at 11. ee diab l2: (2015210000) =25-Dorr provided sworn affidavit in support of Senator Sorenson dated April 30, 2013 to the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee. In the affidavit, Mr. Dorr swore as follows: ‘At no time was I, nor to my knowledge the rest of the office staff, informed that Mrs. Heki had data on her campaign computer that was proprietary and/or off-limits to the campaign or campaign staff. At no time was I, nor to my knowledge the rest of the office staff, informed that anybody else in the office, ... was in possession of proprietary data that was off-limits to the campaign staffers." Mr, Dorr gave us a similar statement during his interview. We note that, other than Senator Sorenson, Mr. Dorr is the only Bachmann campaign worker in the Iowa office we could find that claims not to have known that Ms. Heki possessed a list of names that she could not or would not disclose. Mr. Dorr’s affidavit conspicuously omits the date or approximate time period in which he downloaded the list ftom Ms, Heki's computer. His affidavit and his statement to us indicate that he downloaded a list from Ms. Heki’s computer on only one occasion. When asked whether the October 29, 2011 Aaron Dorr Memo offering the NICHE list to the Ron Paul campaign refreshed his memory, Mr. Dorr replied only that it did not. We note that Mr. Dorr did not deny that the list offered in the Aaron Dorr Memo was the NICHE list, however. Mr. Dorr claimed that he did not know anything about his « s @ ® Exhibit 4 (Supplemental Response) at 3-7. Id. at 4. Exhibit 9 (Dorr Interview) at 4, Id, at 8, (e2o1s210.D0C) -26-brother’s negotiation on his or Senator Sorenson’s behalf with the Ron Paul campaign." Mr. Dorr further claimed that although he was copied on the late October 2011 emails from his brother regarding negoti ions with the Ron Paul campaign, he did not actually read the emails until The Iowa Republican story came out on August 6, 2013. 3. After the list was taken. Senator Sorenson and Mr. Dorr claim that Mr. Dorr accidentally downloaded the NICHE list from Ms. Heki’s computer. Senator Sorenson told the Urbandale Police Department that he leamed the list had been taken “days or even maybe a few weeks” before November 10, 2011, We are hard-pressed to believe that Senator Sorenson or Mr. Dorr would not have immediately explained a true accident. Instead of doing so, Senator Sorenson and Mr. Dorr allowed Ms. Heki to think she must have accidently disclosed the list until after the caucuses, when others told her the truth. A telling email from Guy Short to persons associated with Ms. Bachmann’s national campaign and Mr, Short’s consulting firm (described below) was sent the morning before the BFP email was distributed to the members of the NICHE database. ‘Mr. Short’s November 9, 2011 email regarding the subject of “additional IA Christian emails” provides as follows: “id, bal Id, This statement seems particularly incredible given one of Aaron Dort’s statements in the email regarding the proposed changes: “Chris I changed your month t00.” Exhibit 51 (The Iowa Republican article) at 10. t02019210.D0¢) -27-‘These are from Kent, We agreed to exchange our IA voter file emails for these. can [sic] we please send me/Kent all of the IA voter file emails. {sic] ‘Thanks, Guy Can we get these emails loaded and then any of these that DIDNT [sic] get the IA Volunteer email should get it. [sic]"® 107 There appears to be no attachment to this email.” By specif ly referring to Iowa Christian emails the day before the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators database was emailed by the BFP campaign, the email suggests that Senator Sorenson provided part or all of the NICHE list to the Bachmann campaign in exchange for the Bachmann campaign’s entire database of Iowa voter emails. Reading Guy Short’s memo to indicate Senator Sorenson’s forwarding of part or all of the NICHE list would be in keeping with the implications of the Aaron Dorr memo. As explained above, Aaron Dorr’s memo suggests that Senator Sorenson was in possession of the NICHE list, or knew that the Dorr bothers possessed it by October 29, 2011. Senator Sorenson’s admission to the Urbandale Police Department regarding his leaming that Chris Dorr downloaded the list “days or even maybe a few weeks” before November 10, 2011 is consistent with such suggestion. Because Senator Sorenson asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to produce his computers, however, we were unable to establish by clear and convineing evidence when the list was taken and what happened to the list thereafter. tJ Exhibit 29 (Email from Guy Short dated, November 9, 2011). 7 It is possible that the copy of the email we received omitted the attachment. o2019210,D0c} -28-D. Determination Regarding Probable Cause. 1. Theft. ‘We have determined that there is not clear and convincing evidence that Senator Sorenson violated the Iowa Criminal Code regarding Count I of the Senate Ethics Complaint by himself committing the crime of theft. That is, we do not believe there is clear and convincing evidence that Senator Sorenson stole the NICHE list from Ms. Heki’s computer. Theft of the NICHE list would be a violation of Iowa Code § 714.1(8) which provides: A person commits theft when the person ... Knowingly and without authorization accesses or causes 10 be accessed a computer, computer system, or computer network, or any part thereof, for the purpose of obtaining ... information, or property ... Jd. The Bachmann campaign paid NICHE $2,000 for use of the NICHE list. Theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000 is a Class D felony. Iowa Code § 714.2(2), We have uncovered no evidence that Senator Sorenson accessed Ms. Heki’s computer and removed the NICHE list. 2, Criminal conspiracy. While there is no evidence that Senator Sorenson directly removed the NICHE list from Ms, Heki’s computer, there is some evidence that he was involved in a criminal conspiracy regarding the list. ‘The Iowa Code refers to a criminal conspiracy as joint criminal conduct, lowa Code § 703.2. It provides: id Exhibit 21 (Woolson Interview) at 5. Senator Sorenson also told the Urbandale Police Department that the campaign ended up paying “a few thousand” for the list. {o20192t0,D0c} -29-When two or more persons, acting in concert, knowingly participate in a public offense, each is responsible for the acts of the other done in furtherance of the commission of the offense ..., and each person’s guilt will be the same of that of the person so acting, unless the act was one which the person could not reasonably expect to be done in furtherance of the commission of the offense. Id, jon to taking the list. Assuming he did We cannot disprove Chris Dorr’s admi: so, several statements by and attributed to Senator Sorenson suggest that the Senator was involved in a criminal conspiracy with at least Mr. Dorr concerning the NICHE list. One object of the conspiracy was to remove the list from Ms, Heki’s computer without her knowledge. Mr. Heckman’s statement to the Urbandale Police Department and Mr. Woolson’s affidavit, and their parallel statements to us, are indicative in this regard. Senator Sorenson’s reported statement to Mr. Heckman about “taking the list on a Sunday night” is similar in tone and circumstance to the statement he is alleged to have made to Mr. Woolson on November 10, 2011, admitting, “We took it{]” and “We stood watch.” Both statements convey Senator Sorenson’s knowledge of the propriety of the NICHE list. The fact that neither Senator Sorenson nor Mr. Dorr told Ms. Heki about what they claim was an innocent and accidental download is also indicative of a criminal conspiracy. Disclaiming knowledge of the propriety of NICHE’s list untruthful given Ms. Heki’s and Mr. Enos’ account of Ms. Heki’s initial job interview. Moreover, Senator Sorenson told the Urbandale Police Department that he and his wife are members of NICHE, Tony Eastman was invited to NICHE conferences with Senator Sorenson. Exhibit 10 (Eastman Interview) at 5. {e2019210.000) -30-Another object of the conspiracy was to make use of the NICHE list to the BFP campaign’s and to Senator Sorenson’s advantage, knowing that the list had been stolen, It is unclear, but seems likely based on Aaron Dorr’s memo, that Senator Sorenson was in possession of the list or knew that the Dorr brothers were in possession of it as of October 29,2011. That is, Aaron Dorr appears to have been using the NICHE list (among other things) to negotiate a compensation package suitable for Senator Sorenson and Chris Dorr to jump from the Bachmann campaign to the Ron Paul campaign. If true, the Aaron Dorr memo and correspondence surrounding it would show that Senator Sorenson used or attempted to use the NICHE list to his own personal advantage. Guy Short’s email of November 9, 2011 seems to indicate that Senator Sorenson provided additional names from some list-very possibly the NICHE list-to Mr. Short the day before the Bachmann campaign sent emails to the NICHE database. ‘The email also seems to indicate that Senator Sorenson did so in exchange for the Bachmann campaign’s Iowa voter list. If true, the email would seem to show that Senator Sorenson used or attempted to use the list for the Bachmann campaign’s and for his own personal benefit Senator Sorenson told the Urbandale Police Department in 2012 that he had “no direct knowledge of how [the list] was obtained.” Senator Sorenson said he found out from Tony Eastman that Chris Dorr had taken the list “days or even maybe a few weeks” before November 10, 2011. Senator Sorenson said he asked Chris Dorr about taking the {o2019210.00C) -31-list but Mr. Dorr “wouldn’t answer” him.” Nonetheless, Senator Sorenson hired Mr. Dorr as his legislative intern again in January of 2013." Senator Sorenson, Chris Dorr and Tony Eastman had conversations in person and electronically after the list was taken from Ms. Heki’s computer. ‘The full extent of those conversations is not yet clear. Tony Eastman told us and the Urbandale Police Department that he expected Mr. Dorr to say that “Wes [Enos], [Tony Eastman], and Kent [Sorenson] were outside, ... standing by our offices waiting for Barb [Heki] to come in, while Chris [Dorr] was removing the list.”” He expected this because of a telephone conversation with Mr. Dorr after January of 2012 where Mr. Dorr told Mr. Eastman, “this is what happened.””? Mr. Dorr “basically said, you know ‘I’m not taking the whole rap for this’ basically.””* Senator Sorenson spoke with Tony Eastman about the taking of the list as well. Soon after Ms, Heki filed the civil lawsuit, Senator Sorenson sent a text message to Tony Eastman saying, “I am not going to name you and Chris but you know I was not the one that went into Barb’s office and took the list.”"> This text was sent at 5:06 a.m. on July 7 This information comes from a transcript of an interview Senator Sorenson gave to the Urbandale Police Department. ul Exhibit 9 (Dorr Interview) at 2. 2 ‘This quotation comes from the confidential records of the Urbandale Police Department. Bd. ei "id. (o2019210.D0c) -32-31, 2012. Later that same morning, Senator Sorenson sent another text to Mr. Eastman saying, “I knew that but in the suit she is claiming I am the one to blame for everything[.].””* ‘These text messages and the statements of Mr. Eastman to the Urbandale Police Department, coupled with what we believe are Senator Sorenson’s and Mr. Dorr’s credibility problems, suggest that Senator Sorenson was involved in a criminal conspiracy to take the list from the computer and make use of it to the Bachmann: campaign’s and his own personal advantage, knowing that it had been stolen. Suggestions, even strong ones, however, do not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence required for a probable cause finding. Specifically, while we believe it is fair to assume the authenticity of the Aaron Dorr Memo, we have not located a witness willing to confirm its authenticity. The source of documents for The Iowa Republican’s story, Dennis Fusaro, refused to produce documents and reserved his right to assert the protections of the Fifth Amendment in the event he was served with a subpoena for testimony. And while it seems more than plausible that the list discussed in that memo is the NICHE list, we have no proof of that. Similarly, while we believe a fair inference could be drawn from Guy Short’s email that Senator Sorenson traded part or all of the NICHE list for the Bachmann campaign’s Iowa voter list, neither witness is willing to explain Mr. Short’s email to us We have no independent way of determining that the list discussed is the NICHE list, It a (2018210.D00) -33-is possible that a forensic examination of Senator Sorenson's computer could shed light on this situation, but he has refused that procedure. In sum, while we are deeply suspicious that Senator Sorenson violated the law and the Code here, those suspicions do not rise to the level of “no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of a particular conclusion” required for a probable cause finding on Count I of the Complaint, We thus do not find probable cause to believe Senator Sorenson committed the crime of criminal conspiracy in violation of Senate Ethics Rule 16(a). Vil. COUNT It: EMPLOYMENT BY BACHMANN FOR PRESIDENT/MICHELEPAC. A. Summary of the Allegation, Count II alleges that Senator Sorenson “violated Senate Rule 6 by conspiring with BFP and MichelePAC to conceal personal compensation for serving as the Committee’s IA State Chairman, Compensation is estimated to be $7,500 per month.””? The Complaint goes on to allege that Guy Short, on behalf of C&M Strategies, agreed to pay $7,500 per month to Senator Sorenson and that BFP and MichelePAC together paid C&M large sums of money from which C&M could afford to pay Senator Sorenson. The Complaint further alleged “that it was common knowledge in the office” that Senator Sorenson was being paid to serve as BFP’s State Chair and that Mr. Short was the source of that money.” 7 Exhibit 1 at 3. a {02019210.D0c) -34-By way of reference, Rule 6 provides in its entirety as follows: 6. EMPLOYMENT. A senator shall not accept employment, either directly or indirectly, from a political action committee or from an organization exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(6), or 527 of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in activities related to the nomination, election, or defeat of a candidate for public office. A senator may accept employment from a political party, but shall disclose the employment relationship in writing to the secretary of the senate within ten days after the beginning of each legislative session. Ifa senator accepts employment from a political party during a legislative session, the senator shall disclose the employment relationship within ten days after acceptance of the employment, For the purpose of this rule, a political action committee means a committee, but not a candidate’s committee, which accepts contributions, makes expenditures, or incurs indebtedness in the aggregate of more than seven hundred fifty dollars in any one calendar year to expressly advocate the nomination, election, or defeat of a candidate for public office or to expressly advocate the passage or defeat of a ballot issue or influencing legislative action, or an association, lodge, society, cooperative, union, fraternity, sorority, educational institution, civic organization, labor organization, religious organization, or professional organization which makes contributions in the aggregate of more than seven hundred fifty dollars in any one calendar year to expressly advocate the nomination, lection, or defeat of a candidate for public office or ballot issue or influencing legislative action. Senate Code of Ethics, Rule 6. B. Summary of Senator Sorenson’s Response. ‘The entirety of Senator Sorenson’s substantive response to Count II in his Initial Response to the Complaint is as follows: Once again these allegations are not based on facts. I did not receive compensation from MichelePAC, Bachmann For President or C&M. Strategies. ‘The Waldron Complaint fails to show compelling evidence otherwise. Even had I been employed by C&M Strategies (which I was not) it would not have constituted a violation. First C&M Strategies is not a C-4, C-6 or a 527 and hence not a prohibited entity pursuant to Rule 6. Second Rule 6 0z019210,D0¢) -35-expressly permits a senator's direct or indirect employment by a campaign committee.” Senator Sorenson’s Supplemental Response to the Complaint stated, “I was never no paid directly or indirectly by Michelle PAC or the Bachmann Campaign." It also stated, “I took no list and received no pay from any Bachmann entities, either directly or indirectly.”*' The remainder of Senator Sorenson’s discussion of the matter in his Supplemental Response consisted of various indictments of the affidavit submitted by the Complainant which is Exhibit 3 to this report. C. Factual Findings. 1. ‘The Players. In addition to Senator Sorenson, several entities and an individual need to be identified in order to understand the flow of funds at issue in this matter a. MichelePAC. MichelePAC is a political action committee organized on or about July 28, 2010. It takes its name from the acronym “Many Independent Conservatives Helping Elect Leaders Everywhere.” Organized under federal law as a “Leadership PAC,” MichelePAC was not organized to advocate for the election of a particular candidate.® ™ Exhibit 2 at 3, © Exhibit 4 at 1. Sd at2, 2 Exhibit 31 (MichelePAC’s Statement of Organization). 8 id, o2019210,D0c} -36-During the time that Representative Bachmann was exploring a presidential run in early 2011, however, MichelePAC at least partially financed that effort. b. Bachmann For President. On June 13, 2011, the committee to support her presidential run, Bachmann For President, filed its Statement of Organization with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”). Once organized, BFP became the vessel through which money was to be raised and spent for Representative Bachmann’s presidential quest. Michele Bachmann officially announced her candidacy for President of the United States on June 27, 2011. e Guy Short/C&M Strategies, Inc. Guy Short is a political consultant and fundraiser based in Colorado. He does work for political campaigns through CSM Strategies, Inc., a Colorado entity of which 185 he is the principal.’ Acting through C&M, Mr. Short was paid to organize and oversee the activities of MichelePAC."* Mr. Short was intimately involved in organizing Representative Bachmann’s exploratory effort regarding her presidential run in early 2011.5" Mr, Short then went to work on the Bachmann campaign throughout 2011."* 4 Exhibit 33 (BEP’s Statement of Organization), 7 Exhibit 30 (C&M Strategies, Inc. organization documents). ‘© See, eg. Exhibit 40 (showing disbursements from MichelePAC to C&M Strategies). 7 Exhibit 7 (Deposition of Andrew Parrish (“Parrish Dep.”)) at 13-15, 24-25; Exhibit 13 (Heckman Interview) at 2. 7 See, e.g., Exhibit 40 (showing disbursements from MichelePAC and BFP to C&M. Strategies). {02019210.D0c} -37-d. Grassroots Strategy, Inc. Grassroots Strategy, Inc. is a business entity that Senator Sorenson incorporated on December 29, 2010." Senator Sorenson owns 100% of GSI. Senator Sorenson testified at his deposition that GSI was used for various income-generating, activities.”* As will be seen, however, GSI was used almost entirely for the purpose of receiving political consulting income in 2011 and 2012. Senator Sorenson joins the effort to elect Representative Bachmann as President of the United States. In early 2011, Representative Michele Bachmann was actively exploring running for President of the United States. Andrew Parrish, her Congressional Chief of Staff, and Guy Short were spearheading and organizing this effort with some assistance from Ed Brookover, who had managed Ms. Bachmann’s congressional campaign.” Pursuant to this effort, in January 2011, Ms. Bachmann spoke at an Iowans for Tax Relief event. °* Senator Sorenson attended that event. Senator Sorenson and Mr. Parrish met each other at that event and started discussing the possibility of Senator Sorenson supporting Representative Bachmann.* Senator Sorenson was being courted by multiple 7 Exhibit 32 (Corporate documents of Grassroots Strategy, Inc.). ” Exhibit 5 (Sorenson Dep. Vol. I) at 39. Id. at 40, 42-43, 45. a Exhibit 7 (Parrish Dep.) at 12-14; Exhibit 13 (Heckman Interview) at 1-2. Based on internet research, we believe the event was on January 21, 2011 in Des Moines. ” Exhibit 7 (Parrish Dep.) at 18. 02019210,D0c) -38-presidential campaigns at that point. This concerned Bachmann representatives, who were willing to spend money in order to “snap up” important political operatives in Towa.°* In response to an email in which Mr. Parrish worried that Senator Sorenson “really is ready to go to [Tim] Pawlenty,” Mr. Short wrote on March 10, 2011, “{W]e need to make some moves forward and spend some money on these people or we will lose them. People are getting bought off.”°* Later, Mr. Short responded further, “I think we should hire kent and a NH person. If MB runs it will be well worth it. If she doesn’t we are out 30-50K for a few months. Big deal.””” Mr, Parrish succeeded at about this time in having “personally recruited Senator Sorenson to support Michele Bachmann for president and to work on her campaign in Towa.”** On March 11, 2011, Senator Sorenson went public as the first elected official in Towa to endorse Representative Bachmann for President. Senator Sorenson commenced actively working on Representative Bachmann's behalf, Email communications between Senator Sorenson, Mr. Partish, and Mr. Short show that Senator Sorenson was providing strategic advice about the Iowa political landscape, a6 7 Exhibit 22 (Emails between Short and Parrish, March 10, 2011) at 1. 7 Id. at 2. Ed Exhibit 7 (Parrish Dep.) at 18-19 (quoting Exhibit 3 at 1), 7 Exhibit 44 (Derek Wallbank, “Iowa state Sen. Sorenson is first elected official to endorse Bachmann for president,” March 11, 2011, http:/www.minnpost.com/de- dispatches/201 1/03/iowa-state-sen-sorenson-first-clected-official-endorse-bachmann- president). (e2019210.D0¢) -39-recommending staff members to the campaign, recruiting other Jowa legislators to the Bachmann cause, and making communications on the campaign’s behalf.'° In Mr, Parrish’s conversations with Senator Sorenson, it was clear to him that Senator Sorenson would require payment in exchange for his work on the Bachmann campaign. Mr. Parrish does not recall who first brought up the topic of payment; it was part of a “naturally evolving conversation” about Senator Sorenson’s services." From early in the process, Senator Sorenson was cognizant that he could not be paid directly by the presidential campaign for his campaign work. Senator Sorenson was “very cautious of the Iowa Senate Ethics Rules and said he could not be paid directly from the campaign.'"? Senator Sorenson and Mr. Parrish had multiple conversations about this.'* Mr. Parrish’s and Senator Sorenson’s conversations turned, therefore, to “trying to figure out the legal way to pay [Senator Sorenson] through the FEC reporting and through the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee.”' The method that Mr, Parrish found to pay Senator Sorenson was for Mr. Short’s company, C&M Strategies, to hire Senator Sorenson as a subcontractor. Senator Sorenson could, as a subcontractor “consult the campaign,” for C&M Strategies, and C&M Strategies would get the money to pay Exhibit 23 (Various emails between Sorenson and Parrish). ‘ol Exhibit 7 (Parrish Dep.) at 21. Id, at 21. 18 Id. at 20-21, 31-32. et ida 22. (02018210,D00) -40-Senator Sorenson from the campaign.'° Mr. Parrish consulted with an attorney representing the campaign to determine if the proposed arrangement with Senator Sorenson was legal, and he satisfied himself that it would be.'" Mr. Parrish then gave the job of formalizing the arrangement with Senator Sorenson to Mr. Short.'°” Mr. Parrish and Senator Sorenson did not reach an agreement on the amount of compensation Senator Sorenson would be paid, but Mr. Parrish made a recommendation to Guy Short of $7,000 per month plus a cellphone. Mr. Partish sent an email to Senator Sorenson on April 19, 2011 in which he informed Senator Sorenson of this recommendation.'" Mr. Parrish later learned that the amount settled upon for Senator Sorenson’s compensation was $7,500 per month, as Senator “Sorenson openly spoke about the 7,500 that Guy Short was paying him.” (As will be seen, financial documents confirm the $7,500 per month figure after initial payments in smaller amounts.) Through the spring, Senator Sorenson’s role in the Bachmann campaign grew. An internal email from Mr. Parish to Representative Bachmann and others on May 5, 2011 listed Senator Sorenson as the “State Campaign Manager” for the Bachmann campaign in Towa.!"” 105 Id at 22-23. 108 Td. at 23-24, 1) Td. at 24. 18 Td. at 24-2: ; Exhibit 3 (Parrish Affidavit) at 6, 109 Exhibit 7 (Parrish Dep.) at 28. 110 Exhibit 3 (Parrish Affidavit) at 7. {o2019210,00C) -41-3. Bachmann For President is organized and contracts with C&M Strategies. ‘As noted above, BFP was officially organized on June 13, 2011. On that day, Ms. Bachmann, participating in a CNN debate, announced that she had “filed today [her] paperwork” to run for President.!"! On June 27, 2011, Ms. Bachmann officially announced her candidacy in a speech in her home town of Waterloo, lowa.'!? ‘As the Bachmann campaign was becoming formally organized, it retained national political consultants Ed Rollins and David Polyansky in June to work on organizing the campaign. One of Mr, Polyansky’s jobs was to formalize contracts with campaign staff. One of the staff members Mr. Polyansky did this with was Guy Short. The two men negotiated somewhat contentiously over Mr. Short’s monthly compensation, as Mr, Short was attempting to take advantage of his preexisting relationship with Representative Bachmann and Mr. Polyansky was attempting to negotiate reasonable market terms with him, ‘The pair ultimately settled on Mr. Short receiving $15,000 per month," The relationship was formalized with a written contract ‘1 Exhibit 45 (CNN blog post at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201 1/06/13/rep- michele-bachmann-makes-presidential-run-official/); see also http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1 106/13/se.02.html. 112° Exhibit 46 (Speech transcript at http://www. presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9062 1#axzz2gE4xjP1W). 113 Exhibit 19 (Polyansky Interview) at 2; see also Exhibit 27 (Email between Polyansky and Short, June 21, 2011), {@2019210.00C) -42-between BEP and Mr. Short’s entity, C&M Strategies. Mr. Polyansky signed the contract on behalf of BFP,'"* What is notable about that agreement is that the monthly compensation figure contained in the agreement is not $15,000. It is $22,500." In working to formalize the jonship with Mr, Short, Mr. Polyansky learned, either from Mr. Short or from Senator Sorenson (he does not recall which), that Senator Sorenson had a “preexisting contract with Guy.” Under the preexisting contract, the Bachmann campaign needed to pay Mr. Short’s firm additional money to supply compensation that was being paid to This is reflected in an Senator Sorenson for working on the Bachmann campaign.'" email communication between Mr. Short and Mr. Polyansky in which Mr. Short tells Mr. Polyansky, “Bill needs to get you a contract for C&M Strategies for $22,500 per month to cover me and my employee.”"”” Upon learning this, Mr. Polyansky consulted with legal counsel for BFP (the same firm that Mr. Parrish had consulted earlier). That counsel approved the arrangement, and Mr. Polyansky had the larger monthly sum inserted into the BFP/C&M Strategies contract.'"® 114 Exhibit 35 (BFP/C&M Strategies agreement). US Id. at 2. \16 Exhibit 19 (Polyansky Interview) at 2. 117 Exhibit 28 (Emails among Short, Polyansky, and Sorenson, July 5, 2011). (We assume the “Bill” refers to William McGinley, an attorney representing BFP at the time.) 118 Exhibit 19 (Polyansky Interview) at 2-3. We express no opinion about whatever legal advice BFP obtained on this issue. We note, however, that the law firm in question ‘was not representing or providing advice to Senator Sorenson regarding the issue of whether the proposed arrangement violated Rule 6, o20192t0,D0c) -43-Senator Sorenson’s role with the Bachmann campaign. As had been previewed in internal emails referenced above, Senator Sorenson was publicly announced as the Bachmann campaign’s Iowa State Chair on June 28, 2011, the day after Representative Bachmann formally announced her candidacy.'!’ Although Senator Sorenson was the State Chair of the Bachmann campaign, he was not its business manager. Instead, his role has been described as political and “ceremonial.”"” He traveled with Representative Bachmann when she was in lowa, and he introduced her at campaign events,!*! Senator Sorenson also did grassroots organization and sought endorsements for Representative Bachmann.'* Regardless of the nature of Senator Sorenson’s work, there is no question that he devoted his substantial, if not nearly exclusive, energies to the Bachmann campaign once the legislative session was over in 2011, According to Mr. Polyansky, the Bachmann campaign’s expectation was that in exchange for the compensation he was receiving through C&M Strategies, Senator Sorenson should be devoting his complete energies to the Bachmann campaign.’ Mr. Parrish, who moved to Iowa in June to work on the campaign full time, observed and understood that the Bachmann campaign was Senator 119 Exhibit 47 (BFP press release of June 28, 2011). 120 2. Exhibit 20 (Waldron Interview) at 3; sce also Exhibit 21 (Woolson Interview) at "1 Exhibit 20 (Waldron Interview) at 3; Exhibit 13 (Heckman Interview) at 3; Exhibit 11 (Enos Interview) at 2. 122 Exhibit 19 (Polyansky Interview) at 3. mg o2019210.D0¢) -44-Sorenson's “full time job.”"* Others observed Senator Sorenson in the campaign office 5" Senator Sorenson himself consistently if he was not traveling with the candidate. testified in his deposition that he devoted approximately 50 hours per week to the Bachmann campaign.'?° With one exception, witnesses were unaware of Senator Sorenson having any other job or source of income other than his position as a senator and his work on the Bachmann campaign.'?” The exception is Mr. Enos, who contended that Senator Sorenson eared income from selling items on e-Bay.'* Senator Sorenson did claim to earn some income from sales of antiques in his deposition.'”° As will be seen, however, this was a very small component of the Sorenson family’s income during 2011. The circuitous flow of funds. The flow of funds to Senator Sorenson for his work on the Bachmann campaign can be illustrated as follows: '2¢ Exhibit 7 (Parrish Dep.) at 30. 125 Exhibit 13 (Heckman Interview) at 3; Exhibit 20 (Waldron Interview ) at 3. 126 Exhibit 5 (Sorenson Dep. Vol. I) at 66-67. "27 Exhibit 20 (Waldron Interview) at 3; Exhibit 13 (Heckman Interview) at 3; Exhibit 7 (Parrish Dep.) at 30. 128 Exhibit 11 (Enos Interview) at 7. (29 Exhibit § (Sorenson Dep. Vol. I) at 25, 45, 61 fo2019210.D0¢) -45-Figure 1: The Flow of Funds to Senator Sorenson 2011 Flow of Cash Disbursements MichelePAC $141,757 p>, (Many Individual Conservatives Helping Elect Leaders Everywhere) $104,580 Bachmann for President — BFP Established June 13, 2011 $30,700 in checks payable to Kent or Jeannine, signed by Kent or Jeannine Sorenson Kent & Jeannine Sorenson $10,362 cash withdrawals or eo | checks written to “Cash” 46 C&M Strategies, Inc. Guy Short $59,915.47 in checks to GSI y Grass Roots Strategy, Inc. an lowa corporation owned 100% by Kent SorensonOver the course of 2011, MichelePAC made frequent payments to C&M Strategies. Once BFP was formed in June 2011, BFP also made payments to C&M Strategies pursuant to the agreement that is the Appendix as Exhibit 35. ‘The payments made by MichelePAC and BFP to C&eM Strategies were required to be disclosed to the Federal Election Commission. From BFP’s and MichelePAC’s FEC filings, we have compiled the following chart of those payments:'° Figure 2: Bachmann for President and MichelePAC 2011 Payments to C&M Strategies Payor Payment Date | Bachmann for President MichelePAC. 1/28/2011 $95,285.00 21212011 $2,975.00 2/3/2011 $3,185.00 212011 $3,750.00 2132011 $7,800.00 2iiri2014 $14,085.00, 2712014 $4,500.00 212212014, $7,800.00 ATI2014 $1,627.00, 4312014, $9,000.00, 4iv12014 $3,000.00 4/9/2014 $1,500.00, ‘5/6/2011 $9,175.00 5/18/2011, $4,325.00 5/25/2011 $8,000.00, 5/31/2011 ‘$1,500.00, 6120/2014 $5,750.00 714112014 $2,500.00, 729120114 $33,750.00, 2/3/2014 $5,000.00 srir2014 $5,000.00 ri2r2014 $25,830.00, sorti2014 $22,500.00, 130A more detailed spreadsheet, with references to the FEC records on which the spreadsheet is based, is Exhibit 40. (c2o1s210.00c) -47-Payor Payment Date | Bachmann for President MichelePAC. s/t2r2014 $5,000.00 s4/si2014 $5,000.00 14/9/2011 $22,500.00 17902011 $5,000.00 4216/2014 $20,000.00 ‘Total by Payee $104,580.00 $141,757.00 ‘Total Payments $246,337.00 Over the course of 2011, C&M Strategies paid a total of $59,915.47 to Mr. Sorenson’s company, Grassroots Strategy, Inc. ‘That was by far the dominant source of income for GSI. The only other income to GSI came in the form of checks to that company from Senator Sorenson and his wife totaling $1,440, We assume that some or all of these deposits came from the antique sales that Senator Sorenson referred to in his deposition. We have prepared a spreadsheet showing the deposits into GSI during 2011: Figure 3: 2011 Deposits into Grassroots Strategy, Inc. Payor Deposit Date (CBM Strategies [Kent & Jeannine Sorenson 5/16/2011 $4,675.00 5/31/2014 $3,600.00 eun4r20%4 $4,060.47 6129/2014 $300.00 7/18/2041 $3,500.00 8/2014 $10,750.00 ar2si20t1 $126.00 9/2/2014 $400.00 912072011 $615.00 23/2011 $10,830.00 “or26/2011 $7,500.00 “neront $7,500.00 ‘3! A more detailed spreadsheet, and images of the checks and deposit tickets evidencing these deposits, are collected as Exhibit 36. t02019210.D0c) -48-_ _ Payor man Deposit Date (CBM Strategies Kent & Jeannine Sorenson r2nsgre0nt | $7,500.00, Total Deposits $59,915.47 $1,440.00 ‘The first four payments from C&M to GSI originated with MichelePAC. As can be seen from Figure 2 above, BFP’s first payment to C&M was on July 29, 2011, after the first four payments to GSI shown in Figure 3 above. Despite the fact that more than 97% of GSI’s income came from C&M Strategies, Senator Sorenson did not recall that in his deposition, The banking records for GSI that he produced did not show the source of GSI’s deposits. When questioned about the source of GSI’s deposits in this deposition, Senator Sorenson repeatedly said that he did not know where the money came from.'" The bulk of GSI’s income from C&M Strate; translated into personal income for Senator Sorenson and his family. The bank statements for GSI in 2011 show a variety of debit card transactions and checks that Senator Sorenson described as business expenses associated with his work on the Bachmann campaign and on other income generating activities.'* Most of GSI’s income, however, was personal compensation to the Sorensons. A spreadsheet showing select withdrawals from GSI illustrates this:'* 132, See Exhibit 5 (Sorenson Dep. Vol. I) at 51-64. BS Td. at $2. 14 A more detailed spreadsheet, and documents supporting the spreadsheet, are collected as Exhibit 37. {2019210.00C) -49-Figure 4: 2011 Select Withdrawals from Grassroots Strategy, Inc. Payees ‘Withdrawal | Kent Jeannine CCCU- Community | IRSIU.S. Date Sorenson | Sorenson _| VisaCC__| Choice Credit Union | Treasury | Cash srzor2011 | _ $1,500.00 siza2011 | _ $1,300.00 e/t201t $3,046.16 eii6/2011 | _ $2,400.00 23/2014 $734.00 6728/2011 $100.00 ziigi2011 | __ $2,000.00 72912011 $500.00 8/9/2011 $1,213.70 anitzott | $1,300.00 a/t2/2011 | $2,500.00 8/17/2014, snigiz011 | $2,500.00 giv2011 $373.51, 912712014 $102.00 10/3/2011 | _$3,500.00 40/44/2014 $2,000.00 a1isi2011 | __ $2,000.00 4142014 $286.99 snyri2014 $4,000.00 s1i16i2014 $500.00 sni24i2014 $500.00 412412014, $500.00 41i2212014 $2,560.00 1128/2011 $500.00 sw2gr2011 | __ $3,000.00 swis0i2014 $46.06 121972011 | _ $5,000.00 s2ngi2014 $500.00 12/18/2014 $100.00 122011 | _ $2,200.00 Total Withdrawals | _ $29,700.00 | _$1,000.00 | _ $706.56 $4,259.86 | $734.00 | $10,362.00 4e2019210.D0c) -50-As can be seen, Senator Sorenson and his wife received $30,700 of income from GSI in the form of checks from that company. They took $10,362 of cash from the GSI account. Senator Sorenson was not able to come up with any business expense explanation for the vast majority of those cash withdrawals.'** GSI made a payment of some sort of tax obligation to the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $734 that Senator Sorenson could not explain as a GSI business expense.'"* Finally, GSI paid credit card bills for a Visa card and Community Choice Credit Union in a total amount of $4,966.42. Senator Sorenson explained both types of payments as business expenses associated with GSI, '*” although that explanation is at best questionable given that he was using GSI’s debit card to pay such expenses and given that the largest payment, $3,046.16 to Community Choice Credit Union on June 1, 2011, was so early in his work on the Bachmann campaign. '** 135 Exhibit 5 (Sorenson Dep. Vol. I) at 63-64, 65, 70. ae Id at o6 1 Id, at 60-62. 138 ‘The documents we have reviewed also suggest that Senator Sorenson may have underreported the income he received from GSI on his federal income tax return. GSI's Form 1120S tax return for 2011 is Exhibit 43. It reports gross revenues of GSI of $45,000. The documents available to us, by contrast, show GSI’s gross revenues to be $61,355.47. The return shows net income of $25,462, a figure that was in turn reported ‘on Senator Sorenson’s Form 1040 return for 2011. (We have inspected that return but we do not include it in the Appendix.) Although there may be legitimate explanations for this discrepancy, Figure 4 suggests that Senator Sorenson earned significantly more than $25,462 from GSI during 2011, In addition, the GSI tax retum fails to report any of the payments to the Sorensons to enable the IRS to collect Social Security and Medicare taxes for $ corporation distributions paid in lieu of wages. (o2019210.p0C} -S1-In sum, there is no doubt that the bulk of the money that originated from MichelePAC and BFP became personal income to Senator Sorenson. Senator Sorenson’s understanding of his compensation and its implications under Rule 6 of the Senate Code of Ethics. There is also no doubt that Senator Sorenson believed he was being paid for his work on the Bachmann campaign during 2011. It was “common knowledge” around the BFP office during 2011 that Senator Sorenson was being paid $7,500 a month to work on the campaign."® Senator Sorenson’s compensation was well known around the campaign because, as one witness put it, “Kent is not shy.”"*" As an example, a national campaign consultant, Robert Heckman, joined Senator Sorenson and Wesley Enos in May 2011 to scout locations in Waterloo for Representative Bachmann’s official campaign announcement. During that day, Mr. Heckman complimented Senator Sorenson for his work on the campaign, and Senator Sorenson responded, “I’m not doing this for free. I’m getting paid.” Similarly, Senator Sorenson told Susan Geddes, an Iowa political consultant who managed Senator Sorenson’s 2008 and 2010 legislative races, that he “doesn’t do these things [for the Bachmann campaign] out of the goodness of my heart.”"*! Though he was one of the few 139 Exhibit 20 (Waldron Interview) at 3 (“[E]veryone knew [Senator Sorenson] was being paid by the campaign.”); Exhibit 13 (Heckman interview) at 2. ‘40 Exhibit 13 (Heckman Interview) at 2. ‘41 Exhibit 12 (Geddes Interview) at 2. {02019210poc) 578witnesses to disclaim knowledge of Senator Sorenson's compensation, Mr. Enos also recalls Senator Sorenson making statements to the effect that “I don’t do this for free." Not only did Senator Sorenson understand himself to be compensated for his work on the Bachmann campaign, he understood that such compensation violated Rule 6 of the Code. In fact, Senator Sorenson simply said so in an email exchange. On July 5, 2011, Senator Sorenson sent the following email to Mr. Polyasnky: Gentleman [sic] I need to get the billing situation worked out, I am reaching the point where I will begin to be charged interest on my credit eard. Please advise how you would like me to proceed. Thanks. Kent Mr. Polyansky responded: Tam happy to make payment, Senator Sorenson then replies Tam unable to bill the campaign due to State Senate rules which is why I have been billing Guy’s “s corp” with my “s corp”! In addition to the discussions mentioned above with Mr. Parrish, Senator Sorenson made comments to others that further revealed his understanding about Rule 6. In the episode where Senator Sorenson told Robert Heckman that he was “not doing this for free,” he also told Mr. Heckman that if he were paid directly by BFP it would place 12 Exhibit 11 (Enos Interview) at 7. ‘3 Exhibit 28 (Emails among Short, Polyansky, and Sorenson, July 5, 2011). {02019210.0¢) -53-him in an “awkward” position because of an “ethics concern.”' During the time that Senator Sorenson was negotiating his arrangement with the Bachmann campaign, he had conversations with Ms. Geddes in which she told him that under Senate rules he could not be paid for his work on the campaign. Senator Sorenson responded that “there are ‘ways around that,” and that “I have to feed my family.”"** Peter Waldron heard Senator Sorenson say to others on a number of occasions that he could not be paid by the Bachmann campaign because he was a sitting Iowa Senator. On one occasion Senator Sorenson said this directly to Mr. Waldron in a one- on-one conversation." In addition, a press release issued by the Bachmann campaign on October 27, 2011, announcing the leadership team for the Bachmann campaign in Iowa described Senator Sorenson as one of “10 full-time professionals” working on the race and identified him as the State Chairman. The press release stated, “Sorenson is serving in a full-time role but state Senate rules preclude lawmakers from being paid by the campaign.”'*” Senator Sorenson’s invocation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment prevented us from questioning him about this press release, but we assume it is highly unlikely that the statement in the press release was made without Senator Sorenson’s knowledge and approval. Exhibit 13 (Heckman Interview) at 2. 145 Exhibit 12 (Geddes Interview) at 2. ‘46 Exhibit 20 (Waldron Interview) at 4-5, '47 Exhibit 48 (Press release of October 27, 2011). {02019210.D0¢) -54-Finally, Senator Sorenson’s awareness that Rule 6 prohibited him from being paid by a presidential campaign is demonstrated by his participation in the roundabout method of the payment of funds to him: Had he believed that being paid by MichelePAC and Bachmann For President was legitimate, he could have taken the money directly. In his deposition, Senator Sorenson advanced the argument that while he was compensated by C&M Strategies, his work for the Bachmann campaign was as a volunteer, as though the money he was paid from C&M Strategies was for something other than his work on the Bachmann campaign. In this context he testified, “I don’t believe I was paid to help Michele Bachmann, But I did ~ I spent a lot of time helping Michele Bachmann,”"** This claim is simply not credible, Mr. Parrish, who negotiated Senator Sorenson’s arrangement and then worked with him, is not aware of Senator Sorenson doing anything for C&M Strategies that was not connected with helping Representative Bachmann be elected president.'"” Mr. Polyansky similarly understood that Senator Sorenson’s full time energies were to be devoted to working for Representative Bachmann.'® Although we note that Mr. Short has refused to speak with us, we have uncovered no evidence that Senator Sorenson’s compensation from C&M Strategies was for any purpose other than working for and supporting Representative Bachmann. \48 Exhibit 5 (Sorenson Dep. Vol. I) at 66-67. \49 Exhibit 7 (Parrish Dep.) at 30. 1s0 Exhibit 19 (Polyansky Interview) at 3. 2019210.D0C} -55-Senator Sorenson’s negotiations with the Ron Paul campaign. Senator Sorenson’s compensation from the Bachmann campaign also came up in the context of his later defection from that campaign to the Ron Paul campaign. Senator Sorenson had several conversations with Ms. Geddes about the possibility of his joining the Ron Paul campaign, the last of which was on November 1, 2011 at an event in Marshalltown, Even though Senator Sorenson and Ms. Geddes had earlier discussed his compensation from the Bachmann campaign, he told her that the fact that the Ron Paul campaign was offering him a substantial amount of money was a motivation to leave.'! Similarly, in December 2011, Senator Sorenson had conversations with Eric Woolson, who had been hired to manage the Bachmann campaign in Iowa in October. Senator Sorenson told Mr, Woolson that his family was short of money, his wife was pushing him to move to the Ron Paul campaign in order to obtain more money, and that the Ron Paul campaign was offering $30,000 up front and $8,000 per month for as long as Mr. Paul remained in the race.'* ‘A memorandum and several email messages produced on The lowa Republican website suggest that in October and November 2011, Chris Dorr’s brother Aaron, the Executive Director of the Iowa Gun Owners organization, was negotiating on Senator Sorenson’s behalf to join the Ron Paul effort and demanding, among other things, a \s| Exhibit 12 (Geddes Interview) at 2. 132 Exhibit 21 (Woolson Interview) at 7. (c212210000) -56-match of his “current salary of $8,000 a month.”'®* We have not been able to verify the authenticity of those documents. Chris Dorr did not deny their authenticity in his interview with us, however.'* Senator Sorenson invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before he could be questioned about these events. 8. Senator Sorenson jumps to the Ron Paul campaign. On December 28, 2011, Senator Sorenson, after appearing at a Michele Bachmann event earlier in the day, left the Bachmann campaign and appeared at a public ‘event for Ron Paul to announce his support for Representative Paul, Senator Sorenson’s lawyer has publicly stated that before Senator Sorenson’s switch, Dimitri Kesari, the Ron Paul cumpaign’s Deputy National Campaign Manager, gave Senator Sorenson’s wife a Iss check that has never been cashed,'** Senator Sorenson produced a copy of that check to us pursuant to subpoena.'®° The check, like the Bachmann campaign checks from C&M Strategies, is payable to “Grass Roots Strategies.” It is in the amount of $25,000 and is dated December 26, 2011. The check is drawn on Designer Goldsmiths Inc, which is a jewelry store in Leesburg, Virginia operated by Jolanda Kesati, Mr. Kesari’s wife.'*? ‘After identifying herself as operating the store, Ms. Kesari refused to answer any 13 Exhibit 51 (www.iowarepublican,com/2013/the-payoff-details-revealed-on- Sorensons-deal-with-ron-paul) at 10. 14 Exhibit 9 (Dorr Interview) at 8. 188 Exhibit 50 (Jennifer Jacobs, “Sorenson faces new ethics complaint,” August 29, 2013 http://www desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dlV/article? AID=2013308290108), 156 Exhibit 42 (Designer Goldsmiths check) 187 Bxhibit 16 (Jolanda Kesari Interview). o2019210.D0C) -ST-questions about the check.'** Mr. Kesari, through counsel, invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when we sought to interview him. Three days after the date on that check, and the day after he defected to the Ron Paul campaign, Senator Sorenson was interviewed on national television by Megyn Kelly of the Fox News Network. Among other questions and answers, Ms. Kelly and Senator Sorenson had these exchanges: Kelly: Was money offered to you by anybody from the Ron Paul camp to jump ship? Sorenson: Absolutely not. Kelly: But you know, as you know accept is different than offered. And I just want to make clear you are also saying they never offered it, no one, not Ron Paul, not anybody affiliated with his campaign or supporting his campaign offered you any money to support Ron Paul? Sorenson: I was, 1 was, | was never offered a nickel from the Ron Paul campaign, Kelly: Or anybody associated with it? Sorenson: Never, never offered a nickel." With the Kesari check in hand, Senator Sorenson’s statements on national television were simply false. Those false statements, and his attempt to use GSI as a vehicle to hide compensation from the Ron Paul campaign, are plainly relevant to the Ei 159 Exhibit 49 (Partial transcript of Fox interview of Sorenson by Megyn Kelly, December 29,2011). The interview is available at, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERZw2zeb7q0. {e2019210.D0c) -58-question of whether he did the same thing with regard to compensation from the Bachmann campaign. 9, Payments to Senator Sorenson after the Iowa caucuses. Following the Iowa caucuses, Senator Sorenson’s company, Grassroots Strategy, Inc., received a series of wire transfers from a company called ICT, Inc. Those transfers, totaling $73,000, amounted to virtually all of the revenue of GSI during 2012. Here is a spreadsheet showing the sources of income of GSI during that ye 0 Figure 5: 2012 Deposits into Grassroots Strategy, Inc. Payor Prokleen Total Midwest Building Freedom Deposit Date_| Maintenance _| ICT, Inc. Cash. Enterprises, Inc. 1/23/2012 $800.00 21912012 $33,000.00 -4i3i2012 $160.00 -aigi2012 $16,000.00, 5142012, $8,000.00 erta2012, $8,000.00 7r2012, $200.00 72012012 $600.00 i2are012, $300.00 riatie012 $8,000.00 s1areo12, {$1,100.00 yt7/2012, $100.00 9128/2012, $65.00 0/10/2012. $10.00 sor1gr2012 $200.00 10/26/2012. $100.00 41/272012 $630.00 $900.00 160 collected as Exhibit 38. 4o2019210D00) soe ‘A more detailed spreadsheet, and the documents supporting this spreadsheet, arePayor ProKieen Total Midwest Building Freedom Deposit Date | Maintenance _| ICT, Inc. Cash Enterprises, Inc. swtai2012 $250.00 |__swv20r2012 _ $60.00 | Total | Deposits se00.00| $73,000.00 | _ $3,775.00 $300.00 Notably, the deposits could be construed to reflect payments of $8,000 per month from February through July of 2012, with the first payment, $33,000, being an $8,000 monthly payment and $25,000 to reflect the uncashed check Senator Sorenson received just before he joined the Ron Paul campaign. We have determined that ICT, Inc. is a business entity associated with a documentary film maker named Noel “Sonny” Izon.'* The business address from which the payments originated, however is of an attorney, William Howard, in Hyattsville, Maryland. We understand that Mr. Howard is somehow associated with ICT and Mr. Tzon,'* In his deposition, Senator Sorenson denied that the payments from ICT were in any way connected with the Ron Paul campaign. He was, however, impressively vague about who the source of the payments was and what services he rendered in exchange for that amount of money." He could not identify what he did for ICT beyond “[g]eneral consulting both on political and business issues” and seeking “locations for video shoots 1s! Exhibit 8 (Cohen Interview); Exhibit 53 (Linkedin profile for Noel Izon). 162 Exhibit 8 (Cohen Interview). 163 See generally Exhibit 5 (Sorenson Dep. Vol. I) at 79-83, 87-89. {20192t0,00C) -60-in Iowa.”"* He said ICT had “a lot of clients,” but he could identify none. He could not remember the correct name of the “Sonny” associated with ICT.'% ‘We have not, to date, been able to establish a connection between the payments from ICT to GSI and the Ron Paul campaign. The circumstances of those payments that we have described, however, creates a strong suspicion that those payments. are associated with the Ron Paul campaign, That suspicion is augmented by the fact that Senator Sorenson initially gave such vague answers about the payments and then later asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than answer further questions about them.'®’ As a legal matter, we are entitled to infer that Senator Sorenson's answers to questions to which he has asserted his Fifth Amendment right would have been adverse to him. In this instance, we do.'* ‘6 Id, at 79, 80. 1 Te. at 79, 82-83, Ke Td. at 81. ‘61 Exhibit 6 (Sorenson Dep. Vol. II) at 102. ‘os Tt has long been the law, in Iowa and throughout the nation, that a judge, jury, or other fact-finder may draw a negative inference from a witness’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a non-criminal case. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 317, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 1557 (1976). That is, when a witness declines to answer, asserting his Fifth Amendment rights, the fact-finder may infer “that the answer would be adverse to the party.” Eldridge v. Herman, 291 N,W.2d 319, 322-23 (lowa 1980). A negative inference is permitted in all non-criminal matters, from an ordinary civil suit, Conkling v. Conkling, 185 N.W.2d 777, 784 (lowa 1971), to an administrative enforcement action, Craig Foster Ford, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 562 N.W.2d 618, 623-24 (Iowa 1997), to a deportation proceeding, Gutierrez v, Holder, 662 F.3d 1083 (9" Cir. 2011). (Of course, a negative inference fiom assertion of the Fifth Amendment right is forbidden in a criminal prosecution. State v, Morrison, 368 N.W.2d 173, 175 (lowa 1985)). oz019210,D0¢) -61-It is the case, as in 2011, that the vast majority of GSI’s 2012 revenue became personal income for the Sorenson family. A spreadsheet showing withdrawals from GSI illustrates this:'” Figure 6: 2012 Select Withdrawals from Grassroots Strategy, Ine. Payeos Warren, Forest Kent Jeannine Water Septic Tank Withdrawal Date | Sorenson __| Sorenson visacc | Cash _| District Service 27/2012 ‘$550.00 aiigizo12 | __ $4,700.00 2114/2012 $168.48 2116/2012 | __ $5,000.00 212112012 | _ $10,000.00 2reare012 | __ $5,000.00 sier2012 | _ $7,500.00 araro012 $72.95 arar2012 $100.00 ariorg0t2 | _ $15,000.00 anter2012, $150.00 51912012, $100.00 5122/2012 $165.00 5/29/2012 $94.42 ererz012 | _ $2,000.00 i162012| $6,000.00 er18/2012. $330.00 rare $1,072.56 erz2012, $200.00 ergr2012. $1,000.00 siarzot2 | _ $2,000.00 grgi2012 $226.00 a4yri2012 $930.00 Totals $57,200.00 $550.00 | $3,438.41 | $150.00 $795.00 $225.00 1 A more detailed spreadsheet, and the documents on which this spreadsheet. is based are collected as Exhibit 39. {o2019210D0c} -62-D. _ Determination Regarding Probable Cause. Rule 6 of the Senate Code of Ethics. Although the facts of Senator Sorenson’s compensation from MichelePAC and BFP are, in the main, quite clear, the legal implications of those facts under Rule 6 are less obvious. To be direct, Rule 6 could be written more clearly in a couple of respects. Whether Senator Sorenson’s conduct violated Rule 6 requires some interpretation of the Rule. We conclude, however, that at least for those funds originating with MichelePAC in the first half of 2011, probable cause exists to find that Senator Sorenson knowingly violated Rule 6, With regard to funds originating with BFP, and with regard to funds originating from MichelePAC in late 2011, however, we believe that the Committee needs to make an interpretation of its own Rute. a. ‘The meaning of “employment” in Rule 6. The relationship that Rule 6 prohibits, read literally, is “employment.” In pertinent part, the Rule provides: ‘A senator shall not accept employment, either directly or indireetly, from a political action committee or from an organization exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(4), 501(¢)(6), or 527 of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in activities related to the nomination, election, or defeat of a candidate for public office. Senate Code of Ethics, Rule 6 (emphasis supplied). In his deposition, Senator Sorenson appeared to attach some significance to that word, claiming that he was not “employed by a candidate.” 170 Exhibit 5 (Sorenson Dep. Vol. I) at 36. {02019210,00C) -63-“Employment” has varying definitions under the law. Senator Sorenson appeared to be setting up the argument that “employment” is distinguished from an independent contractor relationship. In some circumstances, employment is so defined. See, eg., Towa Code § 421.17B(1)(b) (in the context of administrative wage assignment cooperative agreements, ““[e}mployment’ only includes parties in an employer-employee relationship and does not include one acting as a self-employer, contractor, distributor, agent, or in any representative capacity.”). By contrast, for the purposes of administering Iowa’s Sex Offender Registry statute, “employment” is defined very broadly and covers a person “who is self-employed, employed by another, and includes a person working under contract, or acting or serving as a volunteer, regardless of whether the self employment, employment by another, or volunteerism is performed for compensation.” Towa Code § 692A.101(10) and (11). Here, it is notable that Rule 6 modifies the term “employment” with the words “directly or indirectly.” It is also relevant to consider the purpose for which Rule 6 was adopted, as confirmed by the long-time Secretary of the Iowa Senate. That is, the Rule is intended to prevent the appearance of state senators, in effect, selling their offices in order to promote the candidacy of other politicians." Given that purpose, and the words “directly or indirectly,” we think that permitting senators to evade the restrictions of Rule 6 by creating independent contractor relationships in place of narrowly-defined “employment” relationships would effectively destroy the meaning of Rule 6. 17 Exhibit 17 (Marshall Interview) at 1-2, (o2019210.00C) -64-Senator Sorenson was expected by the Bachmann campaign to devote the equivalent of a full-time job to supporting its candidate. By all appearances, including Senator Sorenson’s own account of the hours he spent on the campaign, that is what he did. We can easily conclude that his relationship with the Bachmann campaign constituted “employment” under Rule 6. b. The type of political entity from which the funds originated. Senator Sorenson’s compensation for supporting Representative Bachmann originated from two different places. At certain times, the funds originated with MichelePAC, a political action committee that was not formed to support any particular candidate, At other times the funds originated with BEP, a committee established for the purposes of supporting an identifiable candidate, It is at least arguable that those two sources should be treated differently under Rule 6. Rule 6 prohibits direct or indirect employment with a “political action committee.” The definition of political action committee under Rule 6 is lengthy, but it contains an exception for a “candidate's committee”: For the purpose of this rule, a political action committee means a committee, but not a candidate's committee, which accepts contributions, makes expenditures, or incurs indebtedness in the aggregate of more than seven hundred fifty dollars in any one calendar year to expressly advocate the nomination, election, or defeat of a candidate for public office or to expressly advocate the passage or defeat of a ballot issue or influencing legislative action, or an association, lodge, society, cooperative, union, fraternity, sorority, educational institution, civic organization, labor organization, religious organization, or professional organization which makes contributions in the aggregate of more than seven hundred fifty dollars in any one calendar year to expressly advocate the nomination, election, or defeat of a candidate for public office or ballot issue or influencing legislative action. {o2018210.00c) -65-Senate Code of Eth Rule 6 (emphasis supplied). Because MichelePAC and BFP could potentially be treated differently under Rule 6, we will address them separately. (i) MichelePAC, Early in 2011, Senator Sorenson’s compensation plainly came from MichelePAC. Figures 2 and 3 above show that GSI received four checks totaling $15,8335.47 drawn on C&M Strategies, Inc. when C&M had received no funds from BFP. We further conclude that there is probable cause to believe Senator Sorenson knew in early 2011 that his compensation was coming from MichelePAC. In an email dated May 24, 2011, Mr. Parrish told Senator Sorenson to send MichelePAC an invoice for “expenses and your salary.”"” Moreover, other Bachmann staffers with whom Senator Sorenson was working closely on the Bachmann campaign—Andy Parrish, Wes Enos, and Drew Klein— were all being paid by MichelePAC directly.’ In fact, Senator Sorenson wrote to Mr. Klein to offer him a position with the “Bachmann team here in Iowa.” When he did so, he told Mr. Klein that MichelePAC would be paying his compensation.'™ Finally, as Figure 3 above shows, Senator Sorenson’s first three payments from the Bachmann campaign were before June 13, 2011, when BFP simply did not exist. Given that the 12 Exhibit 26 (Emails among Parrish, Sorenson, and others, May 24, 2011), 173 Exhibit 41 is a spreadsheet showing payments by MichelePAC to Messrs. Parrish, Enos, and Klein and makes reference to the FEC disclosure documents supporting those payments, See also Exhibit 11 (Enos Interview) at 1,6. 14 Exhibit 24 (Sorenson email to Klein, May 9, 2011). (o219210.00) - 66 -it,'’> it is reasonable to formation of BFP was a public and nationally-reported event assume Senator Sorenson knew that BFP did not exist and that the funds were coming from the PAC. Payments from MichelePAC to Senator Sorenson violate Rule 6. There is no reasonable construction of Rule 6 that would allow MichelePAC to be a “candidate's committee.” The Statement of Organization for MichelePAC registered the entity as a “Political Action Committee” (“PAC”), not a “Candidate Committee.”'”’ In particular, MichelePAC was registered as a “Leadership PAC,” which is a type of PAC directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by a federal candidate or officeholder and which is neither an authorized committee nor affiliated with the candidate’s authorized committee.'”” Authorized committees are often called candidate committees.'™ Thus, by definition, a Leadership PAC, such as MichelePAC, is neither a candidate committee nor affiliated with the candidate committee of the sponsor candidate or officcholder. ‘Thus, we find probable cause to believe that Senator Sorenson violated Rule 6 with regard to the payments that originated from MichelePAC in early 2011 175 Exhibit 45 (CNN blog post at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201 1/06/13/rep- michele-bachmann-makes-presidential-run-official/). 176 Exhibit 31 (MichelePAC Statement of Organization). 17 Federal Election Commission, Congressional Candidates and Committees, at 168 (2011), available at: http://www.fec. gov/pdf/eandgui.pdf, accord 2 U.S.C. § 434(1)(8)(B). '8 FEC, Congressional Candidates and Committees, at 165; accord 2 U.S.C. § 43166). {o2019210,D0c} -67-It is also may be the case that Senator Sorenson, through C&M Strategies and GSI, received payments from MichelePAC in late 2011 when BFP was running out of money, Figure 2 above shows that after November 9, 2011, BFP’s payments to C&M ceased, while MichelePAC’s payments at the end of 2011 increased. It would appear, therefore, that at least the last $7,500 payment that Senator Sorenson received in December 2011 originated with MichelePAC, Because Mr. Short refused to speak with us, however, and because we did not reach this topic with Senator Sorenson before he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, we cannot say with confidence that Senator Sorenson knew whether in late 2011 his compensation was originating from MichelePAC. If he believed his compensation still originated with BFP, then whether that compensation violated Rule 6 turns on whether payments that actually originated with BFP violated Rule 6. (ii) Bachmann For President. Commencing in July 2011, after BFP’s formation, Senator Sorenson knowingly, through C&M Strategies and GSI, received a series of payments that originated with BFP. Whether those payments violated Rule 6 depends on whether BEP constitutes a “candidate’s committee” for the purposes of the exception to Rule 6 quoted above. This presents a difficult question of interpretation. As noted above, the purpose of the Rule is to prevent the appearance of senators using their offices for personal profit to advance the political ends of others. If a senator, consistent with Rule 6, could accept compensation from any candidate's committee in any election, the purpose of the Rule would again largely be destroyed. o2019210D0c} -68-Historically, the general understanding in the Iowa Senate of Rule 6 has been that the exception for a “candidate's committee” is limited to the senator’s own candidate's committee. In other words, senators can draw compensation for working for their own committees, but they cannot be compensated for working for the committees of any other candidate, Mike Marshall, who has served as the Secretary of the Senate for fifteen years, articulated this interpretation of the Rule publicly in the Des Moines Register this summer,'” and he has confirmed that interpretation with us, saying that this has been the “ at, 3 Dec 2013 20:47:27 -0500 ‘To: Bob Capitol City Partners Heckman Ce: Eric A MEDIA Woolson Subjects] propose... Dear Bob and Eri, I shared with you both today the personal turmoil that I suffer because ofthe theft ofthe NICHE lst. I ‘am the father to five children and grandfather to seven grandchildren who love and trust me to always do the right thing even when the consequences are notin my favor or to my benefit. ‘Therefore, I cannot in good conscience continue to work inthe office knowing the truth with regard to this situation. Lowe it to my Lord, Michele, her Christian supporters, Barbara Heki, and Michele's two ‘most recent adds, Tamara Scott and Danny Carroll, to do the right thing I propose that | meet with Kent to ask him to go to Barbara Heki, apologize, ask for forgiveness ‘and request that Barbara not to say or do anything until after the Caucus. I further beliave thet Kent and others involved should tender their resignations effective January 4th. This is nota legal situation, this is ‘a moral or ethical circumstance that requires that I respond accordingly. Blessings, peter r, Peter. Weldron Bachmann for President stall 20a ent 79 mail ive enmimail/Print Messaves.asmTonids=cb24eb46-67e3-1e2-.. 1/26/2013, Ex 1-23UrbandalePatch, UPDATE: Former Bachmann Campaign Aide Files Police Report Accusing Ron Paul Backer, a State Senator, of Theft Barb Hex! of Johnston filed a theft report last week with the Urbandale Police Department accusing State Sen. Kent Sorenson of Milo with stealing 2 database in November. Sorenson denies taking the file or any wrongdoing. ByDeb Belt September 20, 2012 ‘A,ohnston woman who once worked for former GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has filed a theft report with the Urbandale Police Department clatming an fowa state senator stole & private email ist from the campaign aide. ‘According to an Urbandale police report fled Sept. 41, Barb Heki told officers that sometime between Nov. 1 and Nov. 10, 2041, a private emaillist was stolen from her office at Bachmann's lowa campaign office in Urbandale. “The police report lists the suspect as @ 40-year-old man from Milo who Is a state senetor, but does not give the legislator's name. Urbandale Police Spokesman Randy Peterson says the department does not release suspect names. Ex 1-24His attorney, Theodore Sporer of the Sporer & Flanagan law firm in Des Moines, told Patch that ‘Sorenson has committed no orime and has not been contacted by Urbandale police. ‘The stale senator from Warren County is Kent Sorenson, 40, of Milo “Obviously, Kent denies any wrongdoing," Sporer sald, "He did not steal anything from Barb Hek! or take anything in her possession. We know nothing about this criminal complaint.” ‘Sorenson was Bachmann's lowa campaign chairman at the fime ofthe theft but defected to Texas Rep. Ron Paul's organization just a week before the January caucuses. Sporer said Sorenson's, departure from the Bachmann camp was in no way tied to the allegations raised by Heki While the Bachmann campaign used Heki's eral list, Sporer said Sorenson didnt teke It or use it for the campaign. Sporer sald he believes @ home-school group reached an agreement with Bachmann to use thelist, althaugh he is unsure of when permission was obtained. First a Civil Suit, Now a Criminal Compiaint While the criminal complaint was filed last wek, HeKi rst began legal proceedings against the former Bachmann campaign in late July. Heki sued the Minnesota congresswoman and her senior campaign aides, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, claiming Sorenson took the email ist ‘and that the Johnston women was blamed for its use. “The lawsuit claims that Sorenson took the list from Hekt's private computer to promote Bachmann's, candidacy among Christian home-school advocates before the lowa caucuses. Heki was hired to coordinate home-school supporters for Bachmann's lowa campaign, the newspaper sald. ‘According to online court records, there will be @ heating on Oct. 4 in Polk County District Court on a motion by Bachmann's campalgn to dismiss the lawsuit, Sporer sald he is acting with other attorneys representing the multiple parties tied to the campaign to consolidate the lawsuit and work together to have the lawsuit dismissed. Hek's lawsuit also claims that Sorenson and Bachmann defamed her. Sporer says his client did not “make any defamatory or dlsparaging comments against Barb Heki. We'll present evidence that Senator Sorenson never said anything that could be construed as defamatory.” Heki hed been a board member for the Network of lowa Christian Home Educators for 10 years and had worked as a top home-school volunteer for Republican Mike Huckabee's winning lowa caucus campaign in 2008. Calls to her home for comment Were not answered, and her voicemail would not accept messages. Ex 1-25ut Hekt's lawsuit claims that the senator took a database from her private computer that contained ‘names and contact information, including email addresses, of thousands of lowa families who were part ofthe lowa home-school network on whose board she served. Court papers sald she had told ‘Sorenson that she would not provide the list to the campaign. When an email from the Bachmann campaign was sent to the home-school networks, Heki was ‘named in media reports as providing the lst. She was later removed from the boards of the lowa network and @ national network of home-school advocates on which she served. Bachmann won the lowa GOP presidential straw poll in August 2011, but she finished fith in the January caucuses and dropped out of the race. Related Topics: arb Heki, Kent Sorenson, Michele Bachmann, and Ron Paul Ex 1-26Committee/Candidate Details Page 1 of 2 FEDERAL ELECTION CoMMIssION About the FEC Prassoffice Quick Answers Contact Wearstite Home, cron rnauce oxse.osune PORTAL /CANIDNTE AND COMPTES VIEWER / TWO YEAR Streda yorecirne opexsrrunes Details for Committee ID : Coo497511 fod B02 > Operating Expenditures - BACHMANN FOR, pr catotos PRESIDENT “ten Gobbegtone | “srt Fines beortootne nots mm ss DN ‘undies Cantons ‘Commitee Report. Stern Ie - Oe BES - see See Te es 23 ‘orale Sony ‘Commitee sur Payee sme Porpore city State zip PRY amount Mone ‘pests ae Seats | mo oprce next SEBse5 1A SUDO 1230/2011 $5.00 wa Spon i coe sao re RIENEON. orncenewr PES .. an sao 07/03/2011 45,000, (jee ee rresce asa Hovse 8 Sen HoimsON omcenent PES a5 1A SUB40 07/26/2011 $5,000 osteoma | E Eee HI ormcenenT OESyeq 1A ——SOBLO O82572018 $5000 Sonate "| Ee gee , seenavo ne Beams, SEEMENO aryay oe 74008 onre011 $1,038 ras I AEDGESANY oocme MOUS yy sus sanenon f152 x Gower BREEN osc MMOS sus apenon 182 x Sener omens BERGER oocme AMOS aq sunt psa gisa x a cog BROADOST WE, aswmie Tava ovis 43 Fepari & STCs = Iiage Seren ARQARCASY MUSIC asHVLE TH 37203 o6/287014 $218 cron rg Seach een lig WS Feed BRING. rave aaexSOW wD onS27 Y7AOL2 S82 Taper us, —_crassnoors Boers Sere uno, GASSROOTS — srcison n> onsn7 01/1772012 $1,800 Gna &omiion pomoeas Stritch Bos BS co wtste aonyaons 422500 Trail ‘tn tama for onelfnovientee! ante Transaesion. do 1nsam13 Ex 1-27‘Committes/Candidate Details 5 Page 2 of 2 cam, uvonatsina ces MOINS cue co easts uysynis g22st0 cat FUNDRAISING rag: €O 80516 07/29/2011 $33,750 STeavecies cowsuiring 0816 a7/29/3 $33 it es TMOMASINC ere co an5t6 cotzynts 425430 2S Boece Sues tag SS an oonct ocins —20msTON TA F018 ognsyaon 4225 x Eacires anpoonet oocins 01MM TA soibL oanujots 4478 x a camparan —caNraacn T potaseal Rare MEMENT pra GA sta48 oust $15,000 Funds Submissions SERIGES.UC StH Conn Fes ua EN yarn ch 3063 omirein 43,553 Canon Si re eens, G08 - BERRA) - wey omen Tor essa pn opt ion om cok na ed een Corti 998 Su, Weta 22049 (8B) 424930 a Weg 000 Foti ba ghee sues een Sn Soe bane leas mana. ttnlenent fn ant faraianune! an aC ntaTraneantian da insnma Ex 1-28Committee/Candidate Details Page 1 of 2 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION samen voutthe HEC preszotter Quick Anewers contnetus siterip Search" vee exci osacsit os /ONO i COWIE Vi OWENS Details for Committee ID : Co0486738 Ton Summary feptsommarts © rw | — . woverreb BET \ sims monies tin Stay ei cvssines UMS RECTLAERS RMS HEHE ena wre, weap SE i aera i Poppin unten i ror i bee HARrEN PON Coe | rromoveinost Tossa 7 : 1, RECEIPTS i Touenaiial 9s | Seemann sn : Se tom ety canmiies nie 1 ecpetes nom i ances i TTA mst : Bohannon ‘rotestenntnss 29 | oer —* ® ‘ses ° t jdata & Commision: ‘glass. to Ooecatna oat 1 Sm Sahar : ‘ata Coiog ie he | a crt p08 \ or a eben i ‘Hegeering ME ress, “Total Poteet Recelts $3.24 | TOUNEREGETETS shower \ 11 DISBURSEMENTS i iawopoty ° ‘pect Fea! l oe : ee Shuts natn $9244 eats i Tor anon Benes i oo Tnmdeate sea (99000 | ‘Seeunaene comes t Seat ‘auganis 06509 : Sorat ! Sete ° Ex 1-29Committee/Candidate Details cre ee Rosaegrecto) | | ‘eeuncbrgraa maaan seas em mente ‘oxime ry 2 Conse * oan epost 2 maumaleewes 43000 Fetters 40 ° £3,000 ° © Feige Aakty 8 OTALEpeeat aso aerwere Semen “ ann ‘ORAL a 111, CASH SUMMARY ferconrbutine 200381, Seopeotng RaSh Seumenondty $9 coalaonste 40 Page 2 of 2 memacne Plante Ex 1-30Committee/Candidate Details Page 1 of 2 6 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION [Aboutthe FEC Press Office Quick Answers Contact Us Susie wove / EAA NANCE DISCLOSURE PORTAL /COIDATE AND COMMER VIVES /TWO YEAR SUMMARY THER, ober onesie oenorrunes Details for Committee ID : Co0486738 Yes Prod Other Federal Operating Expenditures - MANY pom catatoy INDIVIDUAL CONSERVATIVES HELPING ELECT “Bote cian Fone] LEADERS EVERYWHERE (MICHELEPAC) “imine Eee “Tonsatoneremasest ‘Tansaons forthe 396 - 2012 ling) re at ye rocessec ‘unc Consibins easier | “Yenanons forte YE 2012 ng) ae not yet processed ‘commis Report Svomary oncate expat options mot ml abun Condit Samar AAACN - HITS woreennene indepen seas ‘Leadership PACS Purpose: city state zip BOOP Amount Meme seas ar tse isin mee — oyna Hemioon vA 0571 cnnanose s30257 gee —oyecrnan —_etnoon va 20872 onzeno2 $30.70 rete — BEE omecrnan rego vR_zxrs dain Ear ‘american RGAE FUNORNEINE yuna va 314 e021 #4 Spence Aacoetines Coneietne nt 655 cane ee ROE SPE ag MEMORIA VA BLA OGDEN 67 esa aaaeae ALEXANDRIA VA 22314 06 1 $492 Charts ASSOCIATES REIMBURSEMENT neraay2Ois 448 es BRQERRHGRD FNORAEING: seveyyce co otSS0 CsNHLOL EMS rato Seema Feaa aes ERORENS exe co eots outsrai2 eantoo BY Search ca EXPENSE ae tt ec eEeScwiein ENE —«6O—«SOSS O17ANOL 55.295 Soe Brcms TSUSINET exe co. sste canazn e2ans a oa ep snares itt sates erEtSEeenerr EE ——«€O—casS cnONION: $3250 Sa Bee ema Bie o> mm eninon ea “Bac ing RSS Fed = Thinenint $B cies $EibiRsenenr EME D_——8OSLS RTL staoes Sete cern . “Conan connie Bt ccice | geMORseeenr SRE CD BUSLE eNURIIDLL $2,875 Sears Sear Sima seh i ruvonasne: ia eroncng MBatee® eM «COSTS TOL SHO Sette sexe cohen ‘ems Ech a aaron Ex 1-31Committee/Candidate Details ( Puereta \cockaes pooee reise NSE en UE caresanss $7900 Fi oovnmns oo nacusi wn Forse! exe cusorats #1500 aa Cag ensues ore a Sa ruxonasine: Penasine 05:6 oweyaei. #1527 ecnang census Fest taiira rons oss6 ows1ze11 #9000 Funds Submision Consuutine Cont inion Pi FUNDRAISING: ogi Sona rnorasine desis ousr201 $2800 ‘econ Fea CONSULTING Aaports (2 es) BGOEOeoREEe = Re] tos nescanie eporoptions ee Fete esi conin 994 Shs ny, won 0624890 2-39 inn 212).6 060 ERA SRY ERS Steere magento ste a eho nosiHtanviannelamd ContelTwaneaction dn 1/26/2013 Ex 1-32(Committee/Candidate Details Page | of 2 6 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION saul About the FEC Press Office Quick Answers ContectStareisite Map a Vows / cnn sce ISLOSINE OHTA. CNDOATE MO CMTE VIVER/ TWO ER ‘Secrest rom Details for Committee ID : Co0486738 Other Federal Operating Expenditures - MANY INDIVIDUAL CONSERVATIVES HELPING ELECT LEADERS EVERYWHERE (MICHELEPAC) ‘anise Fes | Tranvcton meseeges: eine Ree | “Tomes 358-2022 rg) went et ree eal cts Tormcontor ne Ye 20a0en nt) nen yee posed Sianery Canto ] sage option ed Tictneas | Caras suman on Contes sonm)—_| MITTTOCSREARAE - BAS ps jane Lenderahio PACS Purpose sigte zip MEM amount MENS Lobbyist Regist ane FUNDRAISING CO BDSI6 05/06/2011 $9,175 rmee coin a rest: reside facet come esas sams = meusoe! Howse Independent FUNDRAISING BOS16 05/33/2011 $1,500 Expenditures CONSULTING. Senate nega ee Expandeores FUNDRAISING S056 05/25/2011 $9,000 costs —— ‘FUNDRAISING: a Pnonusne conse cess 45750 La) ‘CONSULTING: oo Coa a unos sis oro #500 search — ‘uwpratsms sons osoarans $5000 fone ronan: 7 Sa Ainbantene 516 ents 5000 ta Catalog ‘CONSULTING 7 Raper 8 SAE Smope Search pope eosis soyi2/20a1 45,000 Faxes ing SAP ese ra 5 Fd puonarons ose yess #5000 ‘pct rons Expenlture Seren a cecree SNES ‘50si6 14/30/2015 $5,000, a ee FUNORAISING: 0816 12/06/2011 $20,000 sit net ratePeanenation As 196019 Ex 1-33Committee/Candidate Details Page 2 of 2 Shon sean oreo SBE secee SM yyy ERE —=« ‘Tor John Gilmore Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:99, PM From: ‘ue, 08 Mar 2011 18:46:14 -0500 (EST) ndy Parrish Ce: Subject: Re: Kent Sorenson Great. He can get paid by the PAC. Its much cleanerto have BFC pay him if need be. It might be good fora litle ‘momentum on the POTUS fo announce a hire ike Kent. H8/s the real deal. Denny Caroll is another one in lows that would be good, Ina message dated 3/8/2011 4:43:20 P.M, Mountain Standard Time, parrish.andy @me.com wites: Just talked to him, Wette cool he cant get paid from @ PAC Sent from my iPhone (On Mar 8, 2011, at §:38 PM, GuyShort@aal.com wrote: If we need to pay himn from MPAC we can, He can be a consultant and give us strategic advice.FW: Wes Enos Offer Andy Parrish Fi, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:38 PM (On 4120/11 8:25 PM, "Kent Sorenson" wrote: Pandy, >I talked to Wes and he has been under the impression that we wore going >to pay him $4500 per month and no reimbursement for phone or laptop. | ‘know we had this conversation before, but maybe it was not made clear. Let me know how you would tke me to proceed. >Thanks >Kent >On Apr 19, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Andrew Parish wrote: >> Kent - >> Please offer Wes as job as a consultant fo MichelePAC $3668.67/month >>(Edlkdyear). He wil be elmbursed one time up to $700.00 dois for a >>laptop and he can be reimbursed fora cell phone service and data pian, >he shuld bil wth an invoice monthly to MichelePAC and emall ito >quyshor@eel.com. Please note that you should approve the minutes and >>and data pian pricing, It should be enough so we dont have overage >>charges. Also = he can stat thi list for suppor. >> As for you | have recomended you to Guy Short at C&M strategies, | > think he seld he was hiing a §7,000/ionth phone end onetime laptop >>reimbureement, [have CGed him on this so you can work it out >> Talk soon, >> Andy Ex3-5Fwd: Campaign Stuff - Important please read and respond Andy Parrish Fil, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM To: John Glimore —— Forwarded message From: Andrew Parrish Date: Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:35 AM ‘Subject: Campaign Stuff - Important please read and respond ‘Tor Michele Bachmann , Paul Andersen , Marcus Bachmann Here is where we are. For now our Campaign Managers have been given full authority within reason to do what they see fit, they have also been charged to start voter 1D and fo start building Skype parties in homes and. events for MB to start skyping into. | also noed two days a week to do teletown halls with MB and | need permission fo start my microtargeting in these three states. Also | am going to need to start the process of taking an “official leave of absence” from the official office. McGinley is going to have the paperwork prepared in the next weekish, so when MB says "go" we are ready and can immediatly move with the exploratory committee. | have instructed him to incorporate us so when we get sued MB and MB are not liable same with debt. MoGinley agreed that was a good idea. We need a minimum of three board members do you have suggestions? ‘With your permission i would like to start seeking these people out, the CFO will handle the FR team. National Headquarters (Only MB, MB, and LB can approve, so add away) ‘Andy Perish - ‘Tera Dahl - Executive Assistant fo MB Communications Director Andy Interviewing Scott Browns Communications Director) ‘Senior (National) Advisor (Marc Nuttle or Fabrizio or...) New Media and Web - Eric Frenchman crO- Policy Director Deputy Campaign Manager Poltical Director - Chief Technology Officer - fowa Kent Sorenson - State Campaign Manager Wes Enos - Poltical Director Field Staff - Being hired this week Field Staff - Being hired this week New Hampshire Jeff Chidister~ State Campaign Manager Political Director - Being hired this week Fleld Staff -Being hired this week Field Staff - Being hired this week South Caroline Sheri Few ~ State Campaign Manager Approve three field staffersGea: il FW: ASAP Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:41 PM Andy Parrish To: John Gilmore (On 6/16/11 2:25 PM, “Kent Sorenson" wrote: >We have the following people besides myself >Wes Enos $4500 per month >Drew Klein $3800 per month >Chris Dorr ‘$8000 per month pow ee ee 2 an gathered ovens oe en se >have it, but resending wil be simpler. >> Andy Ex 3-7Dear Mr. Marshal: Followingis my statement in the matters before the lowa Senate Ethics Committee: 1. Uist issue b. | never took, participated in, or directed the taking of any list from Ms. Heki's computer or the computer of anyone. Attachment #1 to my statement Is an affidavit from Mr. Tony Eastman, a former Bachmann staff person, who swears to personal knowledge that t did not take the ‘mentioned list. Attachment #2 to my statement Is an affidavit from Mr, Chris Dorr, a former Bachmann staff person, who accounts for the transfer of alist from Ms. Heki's computer and attests that I did not participate in any manner. | am presently involved in a civil case dealing with the list. The cull case requires some level of confidentiality. Having said that, partipants in the case and the Urbandale Police have been given the name of the individual who acquired thelist. ‘The police investigation has recelved my full cooperation and will continue to do so, if needed, The only other individu to make any staternent in these proceedings dealing with the list, Eric Woolson, professed no direct knowledge on the topic and upon providing a statement for Mr. Waldron, was dismissed as a defendant in the cul case. 2. Payment Issue a b {was never paid directly or indirectly by Michelle PAC or the Bachmann Campaign, ‘Andy Parrish, a gentleman who was removed from the employ of the Bachmann offices due to my sharing of information with the congresswoman, is the only person to attempt to provide contrary information. ‘wir Parrish lacks consistency in his affidavit. inthe affidavit of Mr, Parrish, items #3 and 6 are in direct conflict and cannot both be true In discussing his beefs on the Issue of payment. |. Mem #3 states, “We both knew that.Jowa Senate ethics prevented any presidential campaign from paying a senator for his or her efforts on a candidate's behalt.” litem #6 states, "Congresswoman Bachmann knew of and approved this arrangement. She, like the rest of us, understood from Senator Sorenson that it did not run afoul of any lowa Senate ethics rules.” (Mr. Parcish represents, in item #3, that Ms. Bachmann knew of and approved of the alleged financial arrangement. He attempted to offer support ofthis statement with an e-mail to Ms. Bachmann labeled “Exhibit C’. Nowhere in the e-mail fs any compensation to me in any form mentioned, either directly or indirectly in tem #7 of the affidavit, Mr, Parrish offers an e-mall, Exhibit D to state! was "on staf, 1. Inthe e-mail, Mr. Parrish asked, “Can I get the names and pay of everyone on ‘the team, please include yourself as well.” The word staff was never used, | believed “team” to mean staffand me as a volunteer. ll, tresponded as requested. | included mysetf, without annotation of pay, 2s | was recelving none, 1 listed the names and salaries of paid staf. EXHIBIT of Ex 4-1Item #4 of Mr. Parrsh's affidavit states, "The principal of C& M, Guy Short, agreed with ‘my suggestion that we hire Sorenson at the rate of $7,000..” Mr. Parrish offered an e- ‘mail to me, Exhibit 8, as support of the statement of that agreement. i. The actual e-mail says, "As for you, have recommended you to Guy Short at (CRM strategies, I think he said he was hiring at $7/000/month phone and one time laptop reimbursement. ! have CCed him on this so you can work Itout.” Recommending me for an opportunity he thought someone may be hiring fors rot an agreement made by any Bachmann entity. Additionally, | had a pre- existing relationship with Mr. Short from activities unassoclated to any Bachmann entities, Item #5 of Mr. Parish’ affidavit, he claims | was paid $7,500 per month by Guy Short, although he states he, “never saw, nor had the occasion to see, any contract, cheeks, or other documents reflecting this relationship." He offers no attempt at support of his claim. fh, Attachment #3 to my statement isan affidavit from Mr. Wes Enos, 2 former Bachmann staff person who served as the lowa campaign Comptroller. In the affidavit, he attests no request was ever made to pay me for my service, i. Attachment #4 to my statement isan affidavit from Ms. Cherie Johnson, She performed ‘an audit of my deposits into my account from December 8, 2010 to December 7, 2011. ‘Ms. Johnson attests | deposited no checks from Guy Short or C&M Strategies, Additionally, she attests I never deposited $7,500 from any single source. 3. The above facts support my previous statements that | took no list and received no pay from any ‘Sachmann entities, either directly or indirectly. No evidence to the contrary exists Respectfully submitted, Kent L. SorensonBEFORE THE 1OWA SENATE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS STATE OF IOWA. ) ) AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER DORR COUNTY OF DALLAS ) ss. COMES NOW Christopher Dorr, being first duly sworn, and states for the record: |.am 30 years old, a native lowan, now residing in Van Meter, iowa, For 4 years Ihave worked in various politcal campaigns. | thereby gained significant knowledge of the way lowa political campaigns operate and are managed, Due to my experience | was interviewed and hired as a field staffer by Congresswoman Michele ‘Bachmann's chief of staff, Andy Parrish, in the hotel labby of the Sheraton Hotelin West Des Moines in late March of 2011. ‘The campaign started in earnest late in the season leading up to the August Armes straw poll. We. had a relatively short amount af time to outfit an office for the duties of a campaign headquarters Unfortunately, as the most technologically Iterate individual In the campaign office, many duties uneelated to being a fleld staffer were left to me: Procuring internet service. = Procuring wireless network capabilites. ~ Networking campaign laptops. + Procuring central print and scan facies. = Scanning, fling and emalling documents such as campaign strategy memos forthe candidate, bills, voices, employee contract and tax information, event contract documents and other Items as necessary to campaign managers and accountants, Installing and reinstalling print drivers on a continual basis both for incoming laptops 2s well as, ‘installs for problematic print situations (of which there were many). Contact list compilation + Database compllation/data guy. | begen work for the campaign In Iowa before Mrs. Barb Heki or Mr. Peter Waldron twas my understanding Mis. Hekt was brought aboard as the campaign's homeschool coordinator, having previous experience and fulfilinga similar role for the Huckabee campaign during the previous election cycle. Ex 43Iwas my understanding Mr. Waléron was brought aboard as a pastoral outreach stafer, having {fulfilled similar roles for previous candidates during previous election cycles. ‘Atno time was , nor to my knowledge the rest ofthe office staff, informed that Mis. Heli had data on her campaign computer that was proprietary and/or off-limits to the carnpaign or campaign staff. ‘At no time was I, aor to my knowledge the rest ofthe office staff, informed that anybody else in the office, with one exception being Peter Waldron (mentioned below), was in possession of proprietary ata that was off-limits to the campaign staffers At Mrs, Heki's request, | set up her computer on the necessary due to wireless network password changes. less network on multiple occasions as ‘Also at Mrs. Hekl’s request, | took physical possession of her computer on multiple occasions to perform technological updates and/or services as necessary, as printer networking was a common problem, | was not informed during these multiple occasions by Mrs. Heki that the computer was her ‘own, personally paid for, computer. At this point, some context is needed to illustrate the political and office environments. tthe Ames Straw Poll, our campaign utilized a paper card check-in system. Ia order to receive ‘tickets to vote in the straw poll from the Bachmann campaign, attendees had to fil out information cards at our tent, and in turn were allocated a single ticket to vote, ‘Alter the Ames Straw Pol victory, the lowa campaign staff lobbied to keep the cardsin lows to get the data entered. We did so in the hopes we could capitalize on our momentum and corwert these identified actvist/supporters into @ statewide leadership structure for the lowe Caucus. We were unsuccessful in ovr attempts to keep the cards. They were shipped out of state and the date remained unavailable for @ period of several critical weels. Inlieu of thet data, we went to work recruiting county leadership from pre-Straw Poll data. We plugged holes in our maps using avaliable resources, and we were encouraged by Bachmann's chief political consultant, Guy Short, to work together and share data to fil those gaps. In light of Governar Perry's rapidly rising momentum at the time and In ight of the fact that our ‘own campaign was undergoing a leadership change, Guy Short explained to me that we needed to get, allof our lists Into the campaign so that the campaign could continue communicating snd messaging to them to ty to keep our supporters in our camp. Ex44‘That was the political context. ‘The cempaign headquarters context must also be illustrated, The office was an open office environment: Lists and data and computers and offic space were shared and swapped and utilized by staff and volunteers on a routine basis as we worked toward our goal Phone calls, conference cals, debate prep and conversations and meetings of a private nature were held in the interlor board room behind closed doors. “There were campaign computers throughout the campaign headquarters. | had a laptop reimbursed for in part by the campaign. | believe Tony Eastman had a laptop reimbursed for by the campaign. | believe both Wes Enos and Drew Klein had laptops relmbursed for by the campaign, although I was not involved in thelr procurement or selection, | had my own, privately purchased desktop computer in my office in addition to my campaign laptop. { had personal information on it, and as such, it was password protected, and when I eft for any period of time, ! locked my door. ‘Not until the public Filing ofthe lawsuit against Senator Kent Sorenson did J know that the computer in Mrs. Hekis campaign office wasa private one, Inaddition to the multiple times I was requested by Mirs. Nek to help her with technical issues with the computer in question, I remember one conversation with her sbout the computer in question where | teased Mrs, Heki that her keyboard cover did fit very well, and she responded that her kids hhad bought it for her when they heard she got a Mac product. assumed it was recently obtained as ‘were the rest of ours. {nay attempt to fill holes in my geographical area, I asked Mrs. He, in her role as the homeschool coordinator, on several occasions if she had homeschoolers in certaln areas of my assigned region ofthe state, She looked on her computer list othomeschoolers and gave me several handwritten possibilities to contact. It was @ natural thing to do in an open-office campaign headquarters environment, and | made similar requests of Wes Enos, Kent Sorenson, Tony Eastman and Peter Waldron as wel. During » conversation inthis context with fellow staffer Tony Eastman, Tony referenced the lst of homeschoolers that Barb was using to help him find precinct captains in his geographical area To the best of my knowledge, up through this point I had not received any electronic deta from her for her homeschool coordinator efforts. Ex4-5Having already asked her for and received data from 2 computer list on her campaign computer {for my area, and hearing from Tony Eastman that he had moments before received likewise information from a list she wos using forthe campalgn, and in light ofthe directive by Guy Short to getall our lists into the campaign so that the compalgn could keep in touch with them, | then walked into her ottice to ‘make sure it was sent in. {A that time she was not ather desk. Her campaign office door was open, her campaign laptop ‘was open, it was not password protected, and list of contacts and addresses was on the open screen, | ad no reason to question the nature ofthe lst she had compiled for the campaign to date. ‘assumed it was the list she had been sharing with office staf, me included. t was an open file, on what I assumed to be 2 campaign feptop, In a campaign office, in a campaign headquarters on our campaign time. ‘As Uhad done with other campaign computers, | loaded the file onto the jump~ string around my neck, wore ona ‘This was not an exclusive event limited to Mrs. Heki. I took lists from Tony Eastman’s computer, Wes Enos’ computer, Kent Sorenson's computer, my campaign computer and my own personal computer as well as the campaign iPads, Gathering these lists was part of my job, just as likewise assembling iss of identified supporters is the job of any campeign staffer or field worker. We were directed to kdentfy and maintain contact with our candidate's supporters. There was no astumption that we were compiling lists, rather, It was required of us Never did I break into Mis. Heki's office. Her door was as wide open as everybady else's, except for when, like everybody else, she needed to make phone calls and the volunteer floor was noisy. Never did I thwert a password protection system on her campaign computer. Her campaign computer was open, nat password protected, and she had the list she was using for the carnpaign up and visible to the naked eye ‘Never did witness Senator Kent Sorenson “steal” or procure alist, private or otherwise, from Mrs, Helis computer. I never saw him use any computer other than his own. ! never saw him rummage around Mrs. Heki's office or through her purse or personal belongings or effects, 4s the office maintained an open environment, there was never a need for stealth activity ‘To this day, | do notknow whether or not the ist | obtained from Mis. Helis computer was the list now in question. | do know moments before thelist 'rm referring to was obtalned by myself, Mrs. Ex4-6Hell was offering written data from @ campaign list she had on her computer to Bachmann staffers in the campaign office ‘The only list | encountered in the campaign headquarters that was personal or private in nature belonged to Peter Waldron. It was a lit of pastors and evangelical leaders from around the country that he made clear to me was assembled outside of and previous to his work for the Bachmann campaign. His stated intentions to me were thathe wanted to communicate ta them privately and outside ‘ofthe campaign communications methods, so| assisted him in his efforts to do that. | did not upload his contact list to the campaign. Inregards to the other allegations involving alleged payments to Senator Sorenson, |was not privy to any Information elther directly or indirectly. | have learned of these allegations as they have become public. Further afiant sayeth not Christopher Bore yen Subscribed snd sworn to before me by Christopher Dorron the 30 day of April 2013, a his voluntary act and deed. Notary Publicin and for iowa ny Ex 4-7ti mn State of lowa ) ss countyofPolk —} | the undersigned Wesley Ena beng fist duly worn do, upon my oat state the following 1. was employed by the Michelle Bachmann for President Carmatgn in fowa during 2011 nd part of 2012 nthe capac ofa comptralle. 2. My dutesincuded requesting payrol, payments and reimbursement checks forthe Campaign's toa staff and volunteers, 3. Ato tm di transmit a request fora check or Senator Kent Sorenson. {have no recolcton of ever requesting even a reimbursement of expenses for Senator Kent Sorenson, Any such reimbursement would be properly noted on public filings by the Campaign. If a reimbursement fequest was transmitted made at al R would have been a nominal sum and a bone fide repayment for expenses Senator Sorenson would have Incurred forthe campaign 4. I did request 2 check for Kent Sorenson Jr, in the approximate amount of $250.00. That check ‘was for payment for telephone cling and some camalgn diving that he di forthe Campaign during the Ames Straw Poll. Kent Sorenson Jr. and Senator Kent Sorenson are not one and the samme persons. | krow of my own personal knowledge that Kent Sorenson, Jr. performed the Servons for which he was compensoted Wesley nos, a Subserbed and sworn to me, the undersigned Notary Puble forthe state of towa, by a person known to, me as Wesley E. Enos, ll a5 hls voluntary act and deed on this day of hay 2018 eS Comes No set8 a | ‘ineeuicsp copes Notary Public State of lowa Ex48AFFIDAVIT STATEOFIOWA ) (ee: COUNTY OF POLK ) ‘The undersigned being fist duly sworn on oath state that I am licensed attomey in the State of Towa; that Ihave reviewed the bank ecords provided to me by Kent Sorensen for Wells Fargo ‘Account Number S888 9990; that those records include monthly bank statements beginning December 8, 2010 through December 7, 2011; that T have also reviewed deposit records provided by Kent Sorensen in support of said monthly bank statements; that no deposit records were ‘provided for the time petiod of December 8, 2010 to December 29, 2010; that no deposit zecords ‘were provided for the time period of June 8, 2011 to July 7, 2011; that in my review of the records provided to me, 1 did not find any deposits made to Mr. Sorenson's account from the following sources: Guy Short or from C & M Strategies, Inc.; that in my review of the records ‘provided to me, I did not find any payments from a single source that totaled $7,500.00 in any one ‘montily period. After reviewing the records of Mr. Sorenson’s Wells Fargo Account mumber (GBBGA 9990, it is my good faith belief that from the time period of December 8, 2010 through December 7, 2011, Mr. Sorenson did not receive any payments from Guy Short or C & M Strategies, In. that were deposited into said accpuntnor did he receive any payfaenis from any ‘one source that totaled $7,500.00 in one monthy period that were deposited ito saill account. Subseribed and swom to before me this 20 day of _f\ge 2013 NOTARY PUBLIC SANDY SIE bar 7519 fouary 38 Ex 4-9Affidavit of Tony Eastman State of Towa ) ) ss County of Warren) I, the undersigned Tony Eastman, being first duly sworn, depose and state: 1. I am giving this affidavit based on my personal first-hand knowledge. 2. During 2611 I was employed by the Towa Bachmann for President Campaign. My primary location of employment was in Urbandale, Towa. My title was, to the best of my recollection, Central Region Coordinator. 3. I have personal, first-hand knowledge of the circumstances under which ‘the Bachmann for President Campaign obtained the NICHE list from what turned out to be Barb Heki’s lap top. 4. T have personal, first-hand knowledge that Kent Sorenson did not take the NICHE list from Barb Heki*s computer. Affidavit of Anthony Gene Eastman a/k/a Tony Eastaan Page 1 of 2 do Ex 4-105. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, did Kent Sorenson ever otherwise tamper with Barb Heki’s computer. Subscribed to and sworn before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for the State of Towa, by a person known to me as Tony Eastman as his voluntary act and deed on this 3O& day of April, 2013. Notary Public @ Affidavit of anthony Gene Eastwan a/k/a Tony Eastman Page 2 of 2 Ex 4-11fi. 1 STATE OF IOWA THE SENATE ey COMMITTEE ON ETHICS IOWA STATE SENATE ORIGINAL Peter E, Waldron 7 VOLUME I On The Complaint Of 7 And Involving VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENT SORENSON, taken before Julie M. McCurnin, Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of Iowa, at 2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450, Des Moines, Towa, commencing at 10:37 a.m., Thursday, September 19, 2013. APPEARANCES: For Senate Ethics MARK E, WEINHARDT, ESQ. Committe dependent Special Counsel Senate Ethics Committee HOLLY M,. LOGAN, ESQ. Weinhardt & Logan, PC 2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450 Des Moines, Towa 50312 For Senator THEODORE F. SPORER, ESQ. Sorenson: Sporer & Flanagan, PC 108 Third Street, Suite 322 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Also Present: Ken Winbur, Videographer JULIE M. McCURNIN ~ CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER SUSAN FRYE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Walnut Street, #36 Des Moines, IA 503049 (S25) 284-1972INDEX WITNESS: KENT SORENSON EXAMINATION Examination by Mr. Weinhardt 4 EXHIBITS: FIRST REFERENCED 2 - 4-25-13 Gilmore letter to Marshall 21 Re: Affidavit of Andy Parrish 13 - Notice of Complaint 18 14 - 2-8-13 Sorenson letter to Marshall 19 15 - Further Sorenson response to Marshall 22 16 - Sorenson 2011 Federal tax return 27 17 ~ Grassroots Solution 2011 Federal 45 tax return 18 - Grassroots Strategy 2011 bank records 48 19 - Handwritten list of deposits 71 20 - Grassroots Strategy 2012 bank records 73 SUSAN FRYE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Walnut Street, #36 Des Moines, [A 50304 (S215) 284-19722 PROCEEDINGS 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. 3 We're on the record, beginning the 4| videotaped deposition of Senator Kent Sorenson, in 5| the matter of the Senate Ethics Committee 6] Investigation of a Complaint Against Senator Kent 7| Sorenson. 8 This is being held at the Weinhardt and 9] Logan Law Firm, 2600 Grand Avenue, in Des Moines, 10] Towa, on September 19, 2013. ql The time is 10:37 a.m. 12 My name is Ken Winbur of Cabin 17 13] Legal; I'm the videographer. 14 Counsel and all present will please 15 | identify themselves for the record. 16 MS. LOGAN: Good morning. I'm Holly 17] Logan, and I'm with Weinhardt and Logan. 18 MR. WEINHARDT: And this is Mark 19| Weinhardt, independent counsel. 20 MR. SORENSON: Next? Does she have to 21| identify herself? 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: No. Just go ahead. 23 MR. SORENSON: Okay. I'm sorry. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: That's okay. MR. SORENSON: I'm Kent Sorenson. SUSAN FRYE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Walnut Street, #56 Des Moines, |A SO309 (S15) 284-197210 aL 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Perfect. MR. SPORER: Theodore Sporer, counsel for Senator Sorenson. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. The oath will now be administered by Julie McCurnin, certified shorthand reporter, of Susan Frye Court Reporters, Des Moines, Iowa. KENT SORENSON, being first duly sworn by the Certified Shorthand Reporter, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR, WEINHARD?: Q. Senator Sorenson, we were introduced a little bit before the tape started rolling and we got on the record. But my name is Mark Weinhardt. As you probably know, I'm the independent counsel to the special -- or Senate Ethics Committee, and I've been appointed to investigate the complaint that was filed against you by Peter Waldron earlier this year. I'm going to ask you a number of questions about things that are relevant to that complaint. If I ask any questions that are confusing or don't make sense -- and we lawyers do that sometimes -- could you please tell me that so SUSAN FRYE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Walnut Street, #36 Des Moines, |A SO304 (S15) 284-1972I can ask it in a different way or so that Julie can read it back to you, and make sure that you and I are on the same page? ne Absolutely. I serve with a few of you, so I understand that. Q. Are you under any sort of medication right now, or do you have any medical condition, that would prevent you from participating intelligently in a question-and-answer exchange? A No; but I'm sure some people would dispute that. a. And you're represented by counsel here today; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And does Mr. Sporer represent you for the purposes of your response to the complaint? A. Yes. Q. I'd like to ask you, to begin with, some questions about your background. can you tell me your date of birth? A. March 29th of 1972. Q. Where did you grow up? A. In the Indianola area. Q. Could you describe your education for SUSAN FRYE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Walnut Street, #56 Des Moines, |A 50304 (515) 284-197210 ais) 12 a) 14 16 17 18 19 20 aL 22 me, starting with where you first attended high school? A Indianola. Q. Indianola High School? A. Yes. Q. Did you graduate from there? A. I actually did not graduate from there. I got married young and went to DMACC and earned my diploma through DMAC' Q. What would your graduation year have been had you finishe A 1990. Q. Here's a ground rule. A. I'm sor Q You have to wait for me to finish my question before you answer, even if you have figured out in advance what I'm asking. A Okay. Q. Okay? A All right. Q. What year would you have graduated had you graduated at Indianola in the ordinary course? A 1990. Q. What year did you obtain your high school equivalent degree from DMACC? SUSAN FRYE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Walnut Street, #36 Des Moines, |A 50304 (S45) 284-1972AL I believe it was 1990; but I'm not -- honestly -- I can't honestly answer that question. Q. And then do you have any post high school formal education? A. I took some classes at DMACC on and off over the years, and I've also attended Bible school in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Q. All right. Did any of that post high school education lead to a certificate or a degree of any sort? A. No. Q. Could you describe briefly your employment history for us starting in 1990 or so and coming to the present? A. Boy, I don't know if I can remember all that. That's a lot of time that's passed, but -- Q. Do the best you can, Hit the high points. A. Well, early on in my life, I started a janitorial business. That was my primary income through those years. I may have had various jobs working for different people that really -- I mean that are so numerous that I couldn't remember them all, because they were just odds-and-ends SUSAN FRYE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Walnut Street, #36 Des Moines, |A SO309 (S15) 284-197210 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 7 But early on in my life, I realized that I had two choices. I either could become a statistic or I could make something of myself because of my -- of my decision to get married early in life. So I decided to become an entrepreneur and that's really what I focused the bulk of my adult life on. And the first business IT started was a commercial cleaning company, and I built that up over a period of -- from probably 1990 until 1998 or so, at which time I decided to go to Oklahoma to attend Bible school; and plus, just to -- it was just -- getting married young, it was a decision my wife and I decided we needed to do to kind of get away and grow together because we were surrounded by our family all the time So when I moved to Tulsa, I did a short stint selling cars at an auto dealership until I found another job in the industry that I knew; and that was working for Jani-King, which is the -- was the largest commercial cleaning company in Tulsa. I was their operations director. And I had roughly 300 people underneath me that worked in the janitorial business. SUSAN FRYE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Walnut Street, #36 Des Moines, A 50309 (S25) 284-197210 aL 12 13 14 15 16 ay 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We were a master franchise, so we had multiple franchisees underneath us, and each of them reported to me, And I oversaw their monthly business, to the best of my ability, and gave them advice as somebody that had been in the business and had a successful small business. And I did that up until I came back to Iowa, which would have been -- well, it's easy for me to remember, because I was staying in a motorhome at the fairgrounds in Indianola on September 11th of 2001. And so that's why T remember that specific day. And we were looking for a home to come back to, because after spending six years -- or two years in Oklahoma, and we had -- We actually -- my wife and I had our fourth child down there. And we kind of moved away to get away from our family, but we came back because we realized the importance of family. I remember -- And maybe I'm going into too much detail. Q. Well, no. Continue with -- You moved back to Iowa around 2001. Then how are you employed when SUSAN FRYE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Walnut Street, #36 Des Moines, [A SO304 (515) 284-197210 a1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ar 22 23 24 25 10 you return? A When I came back, my thought was -- And I'm kind of getting to that. We had to move back because of what happened, we felt like we wanted to be near our family. When we were in Tulsa, we felt like we had nobody around us. It's a very transient community, so you rarely meet anybody from Tulsa; everybody is from somewhere else. So it's tough to get close to people there. So we wanted to come back because our family was growing. And so we decided to come back. I was going to start my business; originally, that was my intent. And, again, because I had a lot of connections in that industry. So we came back, and we actually bought a house in Indianola, and had our house -- while we were trying to sell our house in Oklahoma, bought the house site unseen, came back and started fixing it up; and I decided to start making cold calls on my business to build a business. And I actually called on a company in SUSAN FRYE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Walnut Street, #36 Des Moines, IA SO309 (515) 284-197210 aa 12 13 14 a5 16 uy 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 West Des Moines that led to me becoming an employee of DuPont Flooring Systems. I explained to them -~ I contacted an old contact, told them what I was doing, and he said, "Why re-create the wheel. Why not just come to work with us." And through negotiations and tough decisions, we decided to go to work for DuPont. I worked there. And I was originally hired as a salesperson, and then over a period of maybe a year to two years, I became the manager for DuPont Flooring Systems in Towa. And it was -- My title was wide- ranging; it was operations manager, branch manager depends on who I was talking to, it was just -- regional salesperson. So I worked for them, and I probably had 30 employees underneath me at that time. I did that up until -- oh, it had to be 2005; from '01 to 2005, I think, maybe '6. I was then recruited by a company - We had actually -~ The business had grown substantially, and I was recruited by Marsden Building Maintenance, because I was taking a lot of their customers. So they came to me and asked me if I would consider coming to work for them. SUSAN FRYE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Walnut Street, #36 Des Moines, IA SO309 (S15) 284-1972You know, it was a it was a tough decision, but that's part -- I mean, I saw it as a step up in the career ladder. So I went to work for Marsden, which was probably a poor decision at that time, because they had -- they pretty much had the market share in Des Moines, It was really easy to grow a company that was new; it's a lot tougher to grow a company that is -- that has a substantial background already in the industry So I just didn't feel like I fit well there. I wasn't able to grow it to the rate that I was used to, so I felt like I wasn't doing well. Probably over the next eighteen months or so, I was really dissatisfied with my job at that point in time. One day I just went in and I talked to my immediate supervisor and told them I was leaving. And I started my business, which was Prokleen Building Maintenance. And it may have been a different name when I first started it. There was -- There was multiple -- You know, when you're trying to brand a company, you kind of go through some changes. I don't remember the initial name of the company, but when I sold the company, it was ProKleen Building SUSAN FRYE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Walnut Street, #36 Des Moines, |A SO309 (S15) 284-1972