U.S. Rep. Jim Hagedorn told his former chief of staff in a phone conversation last month that "I don't believe there's any problem" with taxpayer-funded mail to constituents that was produced by two companies with ties to his congressional office.
Peter Su, the former chief of staff, gave the Star Tribune an audio recording of the conversation, which he said occurred on Aug. 7. Hagedorn, in an interview, did not dispute that it was an authentic recording.
Hagedorn's First District re-election campaign released what it called an internal review over the weekend asserting that Su had directed contracts for the mail pieces, funded through a congressional process called franking, to two companies. One is owned by Su's brother and the other is owned by John Sample, another part-time employee in Hagedorn's professional office.
"[T]here is nothing in [the recording] to suggest that Congressman Hagedorn had knowledge of the hiring of the vendors, that he approved of them or that anyone other than Mr. Su was the one who selected them," said Elliot Berke, the attorney who produced the internal review.
Berke, who was hired by Hagedorn's re-election campaign, also called it a "potentially illegal recording" and said the matter would be turned over to Capitol Police and the Justice Department for further investigation. But Washington, Minnesota and Virginia, where Su lives, are all states that only require one party on a call to be aware of the recording.
The internal review paid for by the Hagedorn campaign states: "When congressman Hagedorn became concerned about potential excessive franking charges incurred by his office on June 18, 2020, he took swift action and took corrective action." Su was terminated the next day, according to the review.
But Su said the phone call he recorded — about six weeks after his departure from the office — shows that Hagedorn's concerns as depicted in the internal review are being inflated in retrospect as he faces a tough re-election battle.
In the recorded conversation, Hagedorn is describing when he became aware there were concerns about the spending on the mailers: "It was presented as if, that John shouldn't have done the work, that your brother shouldn't have been hired, because that was unethical. Which it's not," Hagedorn says in the recording.