Motley Moose – Archive

One would be forgiven for confusion over the issue of Speaker Gingrich’s ethics investigation given the conflicting claims made in the course of the current GOP nomination.  Out of eighty-four complaints made against Gingrich the Select Committee on Ethics made a case out of three, two were not pursued because he had ceased the offending activity leaving one case against him for improperly claiming tax-exempt status for a partisan college course he taught known as “Renewing American Civilization:”

On December 13, 1996 the Committee issued a [Statement of Alleged Violations] charging Mr. Ginrich with three counts of violations of House Rules. Two counts concerned the failure to seek legal advice in regard to the 501(c)(3) projects, and one count concerned the providing the Committee with information which he knew or should have known was inaccurate.

In the Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich House Committee on Ethics 17 Jan 97

After a year of investigation the bipartisan Committee found as follows:

It was the opinion of the Members of the subcommittee and the Special Counsel, that based on the facts as they are currently known, the appropriate sanction for the conduct described in the original Statement of Alleged Violations is a reprimand and the payment of $300,000 toward the cost of the preliminary investigation.

In the Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich House Committee on Ethics 17 Jan 97

On first principles Gingrich is right that he didn’t pay a fine and it is arguable that the sanction was “narrow and technical,” as he has been suggesting since before the finding was released.  But it is hardly an exoneration, as he has claimed, and the complaints which didn’t make it through the hurdles imposed by a majority Republican House at the time illustrate a pattern of deliberate flaunting of the laws of election finance, the rules of legislative probity and the regulations governing lobbying on a grandiose scale over almost the whole of Gingrich’s congressional career.

Image: J Scott Applewhite/AP

At the center of a minor empire of tax-exempt organisations and foundations which Gingrich repurposed to his vision of leading the Republican party and retaking the House was GOPAC:

Gingrich’s political machine took advantage of a number of institutions that actually predated his congressional tenure, the most significant of which which was GOPAC, a political action committee founded by former Delaware Gov. Pierre S. du Pont. GOPAC had not distinguished itself particularly in its early years, but things began to change in 1986 when Gingrich, an ambitious back-bench congressman from Georgia, took control of the group. He instilled in it a sense of purpose – namely, his vision of a Republican majority in Washington by 1996. GOPAC, in turn, became a fundraising machine, raking in $15 million on Gingrich’s watch.

Tim Murphy – Newt Gingrich’s Congressional Ethics Scandal Explained Mother Jones 20 Dec 11

GOPAC became a funnel for contributions to a myriad of Gingrich sponsored Republican causes, including campaigns, though it circumvented disclosure regulations by claiming less than 10% of its budget went to Federal candidates.  But the selling point for contributors remained access to elected and appointed Republicans.  In December 1995, six months after Gingrich relinquished the chairmanship, a majority Republican Federal Election Commission released documents on the subject:

By not registering as a federal political action committee, Gingrich and GOPAC violated the legal requirements to disclose the names of contributors who provide more than $200, limit individual contributions to $5,000 and ban corporate contributions. Instead, the [FEC] found that GOPAC accepted millions of dollars in secret contributions from individuals and corporations in a concerted and successful campaign to seize control of Congress.

Gingrich has always insisted that he provided no political favors in return for the huge contributions his organization obtained. But 5,000 pages of GOPAC documents released by the [FEC] provide further proof that his big contributors expected a return on their investment in the Gingrich revolution.

Robert Scheer – The Jig Is Up in Gingrich GOPAC Scam LAT 5 Dec 95

Not only did Newt use these financial resources to court Republican colleagues, he looked after himself as well:

According to the [FEC], Gingrich used GOPAC as a personal slush fund to save his 1990 campaign, which he won by 974 votes. GOPAC paid his American Express fees, put him up in the fanciest hotels and provided his campaign with consultants to, in the words of one advisor, “help Newt think.” Internal GOPAC memos admit that “Newt support” cost the organization $250,000 in 1990 and that “helping Newt” was “probably the most single high priority we’ve got in dollars.”

Robert Scheer – The Jig Is Up in Gingrich GOPAC Scam LAT 5 Dec 95

The Ethics in Government Act of 1989 states, “No member of Congress shall solicit or accept anything of value from a person … whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the individual’s official duties:”

In letters to supporters, GOPAC left little doubt that those who gave at least $10,000 a year would enjoy extraordinary access to the Republican congressman from Georgia.

Part of what made GOPAC “unique,” according to the letters, was the opportunity to “work with Newt Gingrich and to influence his issues and direction.” Gingrich himself extended invitations for contributors to accompany him on 6 a.m. walks for “an hour of uninterrupted conversation.”

Sometimes, the treatment exceeded casual conversation and a ready ear, according to records obtained through the Federal Election Commission and the Freedom of Information Act.

For example, when the nation’s largest producer of cement was struggling to win a favorable government ruling in a trade dispute with Mexican competitors, the company wrote a $10,000 check to GOPAC and received prompt assistance from Gingrich and a fellow congressman who was GOPAC’s Texas chairman.

On other occasions, Gingrich helped GOPAC donors by arranging meetings with Bush administration officials and relaying specific business concerns about government regulations.

Glenn F Bunting and David Willman – Papers Show Gingrich Offered Big Favors To Big Donors LAT via Sun Sentinel 17 Dec 95

The trail even led to the Oval Office of the Reagan and Bush presidencies and their appointees:

Gingrich courted top executives across America – arranging White House receptions with Presidents Reagan and Bush, regular visits with top Cabinet officials and members of Congress, private tours of the House chamber and exclusive access to Gingrich himself.

Gingrich once arranged for Emil Ogden, a Texas oil entrepreneur who has contributed at least $51,260 to GOPAC, to contact an Energy Department official in the Bush White House.

Glenn F Bunting and David Willman – Papers Show Gingrich Offered Big Favors To Big Donors LAT via Sun Sentinel 17 Dec 95

So why did the Ethics Committee chose to censure the Speaker on a tax-exemption technicality regarding a relatively minor branch of this extensive money tree?:

…for 10 months, the Republican-dominated House Ethics Committee has been stonewalling the investigation.

The FEC documents help explain why: Four of the five members of the Republican majority on the Ethics Committee were involved with GOPAC’s suspect activities. The files reveal that committee chair Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) was active in GOPAC during the period in which the FEC claims the organization was breaking the law. One of her main campaign contributors also gave GOPAC $192,000.

Robert Scheer – The Jig Is Up in Gingrich GOPAC Scam LAT 5 Dec 95

Given that the FEC suit against GOPAC was unsuccessful it is a wonder that Gingrich was censured at all.  Far from exonerating him this incident lifts the lid on a subterranean network of money and patronage which is an insight into Speaker Gingrich’s political strategies and aspirations for influence at both ends of the political money pipeline.  He may rightly deny he is a “lobbyist,” his grand schemes for laundering millions and matchmaking corporate interests with legislative and executive power make mere lobbying seem trivial and insignificant.