The Technical Definition of Lobbying
Jan 24, 2012 - OPINION
When asked if he was having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton stated that "There is no affair." When on trial for perjury, this statement was brought up as evidence. President Clinton's response was that at the point in time that he made the statement, the affair was over, and therefore, the statement that there "is" no affair was technically accurate in the eyes of the law. Asked again about the statement and its obvious intent to mislead the American people, President William Jefferson Clinton famously stated that the truthfulness of the statement depended on the what your definition of "is" is. After all, he did not say that there "was" no affair; that would be lying.
Fast forward a decade and a half, and we have come full circle. The same man that led the charge against the legalistic Clinton now uses those same tactics in discussing his past. Was Newt Gingrich a lobbyist? Well, that depends on the technical definition of "lobbyist," and Gingrich has been very careful to skirt the line between lobbyist and citizen activist.
The full writeup on Congressman Gingrich's lobbyist activities with Freddie Mac and concerning the Medicare Part D legislation is available and contains all the source information. It will be updated as new information comes to light.
Shortly after leaving office, Congressman Gingrich created the Gingrich Group. From 1999 to 2002, Congressman Gingrich and his group were paid a retainer from Freddie Mac between $25,000 to $30,000 a month. From 2006 to 2008, the group was again paid a total of $600,000 by Freddie Mac, bringing the total paid by the entity to Congressman Gingrich's group to between $1.6 and $1.8 million dollars. Sources at Freddie Mac who were familiar with the work of Congressman Gingrich and his group have stated that Gingrich was hired to "build bridges" to capital hill Republicans. News reports also discovered that Gingrich's chief contact with the group was Freddie Mac's head lobbyist.
On November 10 Congressman Gingrich was asked about Fannie and Freddie in a GOP debate. He stated that at no point did he do any lobbying. He also stated that he only gave advice to Freddie Mac as a historian, and that when they told him they were making loans to people with no record of paying it back, he told them that the practice was insane and would cause a bubble.
Days after that debate, Congressman Gingrich's presidential campaign put out a page on their website called a "Fact Sheet" related to the Freddie Mac issue. The page again asserts that Congressman Gingrich has done no lobbying at any point in his career. It also states that while Congressman Gingrich is generally supportive of government sponsored entities, he supports breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressman Gingrich also appeared on the Greta van Susteran show and discussed the matter. In that appearance, he repeated the same assertions - that he never lobbied for anyone.
In two debates in December, Congressman Gingrich was questioned by Congressman Ron Paul and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann about his history with Freddie Mac. In responding to accusations that he used his influence in Washington DC to help Freddie Mac expand its power, Congressman Gingrich stated that the two representatives were both mistaken and had histories of making inaccurate and false statements.
Congressman Gingrich's 2012 campaign website has initiated a response page to a number of issues raised by oppponents. In addressing the Freddie Mac issue, the page states that every contract that Congressman Gingrich signed had a provision that he would not lobby on behalf of the company hiring his services. He also states that he has never changed his viewpoint because of money that he received. The site also states that Congressman Gingrich is in support of expanding home ownership, but doing so in a manner that promotes saving and investing.
Congressman Gingrich has also been active in the energy sector. Between 2009 and 2011, Growth Energy, an ethanol industry lobbying group formed in late-2008 by a group of producers of the corn-based fuel, paid Gingrich $575,000 for advice. Congressman Gingrich has a portion of his 2012 campaign website dedicated to his support for ethanol subsidies.
Perhaps the biggest point of contention was Congressman Gingrich's supoprt for Medicare Part D. In 2003, the Gingrich Group founded the Center for Health Transformation, which is currently using the website GingrichGroup.com. That same year, Gingrich met with a number of Congressmen in an effort to convince them to pass the Medicare Drug Prescription program known as Medicare Part D. Three Congressman have recently stated that Congressman Gingrich met with them in an effort to convince them to pass the legislation. They stated that while Congressman Gingrich may not have met the technical definition of a lobbyist, his actions would qualify as lobbying to most people. Numerous other aides have also been quoted as stating that Congressman Gingrich moved votes on the Medicare Part D legislation.
As stated of their website, the function of the Center for Health Transformation is to develop solutions for health care problems ranging from information coordination to overall health care. The website touts the ability of the group to develop solutions and then present those solutions in favorable manners to the proper people. News reports have stated that the group functions by charging its members fees, and then presenting the products of those members as solutions.
According to Bloomberg, companies paid fees to join the Gingrich Group ranging from $20,000 to $200,000, and gained various levels of staff attention, access to white papers and time with Gingrich. The center’s site lists three levels, from “premium” to “charter” memberships. Those paying more than $100,000 a year, could get Gingrich to speak to a private event, according to two people familiar with the arrangements.
Customers of the Center for Health Transformation and the Gingrich Group included drugmaker Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), health insurer Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, the nation's largest insurer - WellPoint Inc. (WLP), U.K. drugmaker AstraZeneca Plc (AZN), drugmaker Pfizer Inc. (PFE), and the drug industry's trade group the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).
In last night's debate,, Speaker Gingrich was asked about his support for Medicare Part D and his actions to get the legislation passed. He responded in the same manner as he had before - that he was only acting as a citizen activist and that he supported the legislation. He also stated that he had hired experts to instruct him and other members of the group exactly what they could and could not do to avoid being classified as a lobbyist. He asserted that he did this for the express purpose of avoiding the label of "lobbyist" when he sought future office.
GINGRICH: If you read the contract of my Center for Health Transformation for consulting work, it is not lobbying. There is no lobbying and I was never paid for lobbying. The fact is that Rick Lazio and JC Watts have confirmed I was never a lobbyist. People need to vote no and not give Freddie Mac any money. There is a point in this process where things get unncecessarily nasty and that’s sad. I have never ever gone and done any lobbying. We brought in an expert on lobbying law and he will testify that we never crossed the line into lobbying because I do not want this defamatory charge to be made.ROMNEY: You were paid $300,000 as a historian. That adds up to $1.6 million over 6 years. They don’t pay historians for that. You were hired by the CEO. You also spoke publicly in favor of these GSE– government sponsored entities — you could have spoken out aggressively but insetad you were being paid by Freddi Mac, you made a million when Florida lost millions.GINGRICH: Your income from Bain was not Bain’s income. You can’t cite my company’s income as mine. That’s what my company was paid, not me. In the early years, before Jim Johnson and others at Freddie Mac changed the model some good was done.ROMNEY: I don’t know things but I presume it was 100% owned by you.GINGRICH: What’s the gross revenue of Bain while you worked there? Did Bain do any work with the government?ROMNEY: We have Congressmen who came and said that you lobbied them.GINGRICH: Hold on friend, you just jumped a long area here. No, let me be very clear. I understand your technique because you use this consistently. It’s not going to work because the American public sees through you. The US government was not prepared to give people anything like insulin, but they would pay for kidney dialysis. I am proud to have advocated for Medicare Part D because it gives people choices. It is not correct Mitt to describe public advocay and citizenship as lobbying — that is my right as a citizen.ROMNEY: If your entities are getting paid by health companies and you then meet with Republican Congressmen you have a conflict. You spent now 15 years in Washington on K Street and this is a problem and you had a record of great disgrace as the speaker.
So now we know that Congressman Gingrich intentionally skirted the line between lobbyist and citizen activist, and that he did so specifically with the intent to avoid the label of lobbyist in future elections. He took money from a government housing entity and promoted housing initiatives; he took money from ethanol companies and promoted ethanol subsidies; and he toop money from drug companies and promoted the Medicare Part D drug prescription plan.
The problem here, is that corruption by any other name is still corruption. President Clinton still engaged in an affair with Monica Lewinsky no matter how the words are parsed. Congressman Gingrich still accepted money from clients in exchange for promoting their ideas to sitting Congressmen.
While Congressman Gingrich may have been careful to avoid the technical definition of "lobbyist," he still lobbied. The effects of that lobbying are just are corrosive no matter what technical name is assigned to it. To pretend as if the American people cannot tell the difference between a technical definition and an obvious act is disrespectful at least. The question that remains is whether this same disrespect will carry over to a Gingrich administration. Can we trust a President Gingrich not to pass an amnesty bill under another name, and use technical definitions to justify his actions? Can we trust him not to continue practices such as "Fast and Furious" and then later claim that he had technically called to end such programs? Can we trust hime to stick to the ideology he claims to hold now, or will he find ways to parse his words later?
Perhaps a better question is "If these are the types of things we are asking about our nominee, shouldn't we find another nominee while we still can?"
