Page 2 of 2 Previous
Parrish said his decision to come forward is not based on any animus toward Bachmann, who let him go last year before he went on to help spearhead the unsuccessful effort to pass a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage in Minnesota.
“My testimony is not in any way a rebuke to or betrayal of Congresswoman Bachmann,” he said in his affidavit. “To the contrary, I consider her a personal friend and an outstanding public servant.”
Rather, Parrish said, he was motivated by his friendship with Waldron, whose complaint against Sorenson before the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee could have been dismissed at the end of this week if he did not come forward.
“I do know for a fact that the senator [Sorenson] was paid and representations to the contrary are simply not true,” Parrish said. The affidavit also contends that Bachmann, a former IRS attorney, “consistently instructed all who worked on her behalf to follow the law.”
But Parrish’s affidavit also makes clear that Sorenson expected payment for his support, and that “we [Sorenson and Parrish] both knew that Iowa Senate ethics prevented any presidential campaign from paying a senator for his or her efforts.”
Exhibits attached to Parrish’s affidavit chronicle e-mail exchanges between him, Sorenson and Short looking for ways around the ethics restrictions. “If we need to pay him from MPAC [MichelePAC] we can,” Short wrote in a March 2011 e-mail. “He can be a consultant and give us strategic advice.”
According to Parrish, Short “eventually worked out an arrangement” to pay Sorenson, whom Short referred to as “the real deal” who could provide Bachmann’s presidential campaign a boost.
Parrish said C&M handled all the paperwork, and that he was not privy to any contracts, checks or other documents reflecting their relationship. His affidavit also states that he does not personally know if the arrangement to pay Sorenson violated the ethics rules.
Kevin Diaz • StribDiaz on Twitter