Of course he does. But that doesn't belie some other quid pro quo from existing. He writes strictly of "source of 'revenue'". Such a phrase can be exclusory of other forms of compensation.
Perhaps I was off the mark when concentrating on the idea of paid compensation. I don't know. I only know that there is something fishy about his endorsements, changes in endorsements, acceptance of paid parties given by political office seekers, and the 'consulting' work of his buddy/co-author.
I agree there's something fishy. I just don't think there's any attempt to be weasally in his denials at the moment. They are categorical denials.
SD