• Comment (26)

Is Newt Gingrich a Lobbyist?

November 30, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Is Newt Gingrich a lobbyist? That depends, to borrow the phrase from Gingrich’s old sparring partner, on what the definition of “lobbyist” is.

[Check out political cartoons about the 2012 GOP presidential field.]

Gingrich and his allies insist that he has never lobbied. And that may well be true under the strict legal definition of lobbying, but as a New York Times story today by Mike McIntire and Jim Rutenberg makes clear, he has been engaged in the kinds of activity that would fall under most people’s common sense definition of lobbying. Or to put it another way, Gingrich may not be a lobbyist, strictly speaking, but he is certainly an influence peddler.

According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, people must register as lobbyist if they are paid to contact and lobby policymakers and if they spend at least 20 percent of their time working for a client on lobbying activities. Let’s assume that Gingrich and his lawyers stayed on the right side of that line (and let’s pause for moment to reflect on the fact that only a longtime Washington insider like Gingrich would understand exactly where that line lies).

[See photos of Gingrich through the years.]

But let’s look at what Gingrich has been up to in his lucrative wilderness years. “In the eight years since he started his health care consultancy, he has made millions of dollars while helping companies promote their services and gain access to state and federal officials,” the Times reports. “In a variety of instances, documents and interviews, show, Mr. Gingrich arranged meetings between executives and officials , and salted his presentations to lawmakers with pitches for his clients, who pay as much as$200,000 a year to belong to his Center for Health Transformation. … Yet if Mr. Gingrich has managed to steer clear of legal tripwires, a review of his activities shows how he put his influence to work on behalf of clients with a considerable stake in government policy.”

Among other things, the article cites a PowerPoint presentation Gingrich’s health center made to potential members which noted its “contacts at the highest levels” of government and promised that the $200,000 entry price “increases your channels of input to decision makers” and aid with “access to top transformational leadership across industry and government.”

This is pretty typical Washington fare. Former officials will often work influence peddling/rainmaker gigs, carefully avoiding the scarlet “L” of being a registered lobbyist while using their Washington influence and experience to advance their paying clients’ causes. Former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, who President Obama had tapped as Secretary of Health and Human Services before a tax flap tripped him up, is a recent high profile example.

The money quote in the piece comes from Paul Branagan, who was president of Gingrich client Millennium Plastics. “He made it very clear to us that he does not lobby, but that he could direct us to the right places in Washington and elsewhere.”

[Read Robert Schlesinger: Why Newt Gingrich Is Surging Now.]

To sum up, Gingrich did not engage in lobbying as legalistically defined, which is to say he didn’t reach out to policymakers and advocate for his clients. But he did put his long knowledge of Washington at his clients’ disposal, promising that if they paid great gobs of cash his group would increase their access and guiding them through the corridors of power.

Lobbying by any other name would be as politically toxic.

Tags:
2012 presidential election,
Newt Gingrich,
lobbying,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (26)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"hey good for you zach of cincy.for standing up to this nonsense that the repubs play no part in our economic down fall.there are certian people who try to paper over the facts. their arguments are specious at best.

Still on that kick, Bruce?

Still awaiting proof that Bill H. has actually posted anything absolving the Repubs of any complicity in the current state of the economy.

Guess maybe you can't perform such a task, isn't that correct?

Well, at least you have Zach rooting for you now, even if he is totally delusional - the continual "the Democrats are innocent" spiel from the two of you is a pretty sad commentary on your state of mind.

An as to this columns headline "Is Newt Gingrich a lobbyist?", well, so far the worst that anyone can accuse him of is have made money through the free enterprise system by getting paid handsomely for his opinions and advice.

junior of DC 1:02PM December 02, 2011

dom youngross of OH

Lastest Poll

Newt 38 %

Paul & Cain tied for 3rd place with 8 %...

Bill Hedges of MO 2:04AM December 02, 2011

ROBERT SCHEISSLINGER'S LIMITED RE-ELECT OBAMA PREMISE REJECTED...

Above all else, Obama and the republicans outside of Paul are:

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

.....

More of the lame same. And that S just doesn't cut it anymore.

Ron Paul 2012.

-----

PS: Don't anyone lose sight of the fact that Robert Scheisslinger -- not ANY commenter -- is the real dorkus maximus here. Every post from him is a more-of-the-lame-same attempt by his libprog self to get more-of-the-lame-same Obama re-elected.

Said it before, maybe not here:

The only employment problem we have is that the wrong people are unemployed -- in and out of government. A Paul presidency would reverse that, and end up cutting the unemployment rate in half.

That's what probably makes the Scheisslingers, Obamas, and republicans outside of Paul reach for the Mylanta most.

After the permanent, sea-change improvement a Paul presidency would bring, there really wouldn't be any desire for going back to the more-of-the-lame-same.

Shortly after every major decision on the part of a President Paul this sentiment would arise nationally:

WHY DIDN'T WE DO THIS SOONER???, as in:

Why didn't we GTFO of Afghanistan sooner? What in the HELL were we thinking? And who the F was twisting our arms behind our backs NOT to do so???

or

Why didn't we scale back all those foreign-country stimulus programs called military bases sooner? What in the HELL were we thinking? And who the F was twisting our arms behind our backs NOT to do so???

or

Why didn't we get out of the federal bailout, stimulus, and picking winners and losers games sooner? What in the HELL were we thinking? And who the F was twisting our arms behind our backs NOT to do so???

Then in particular, a couple hundred million people now much wiser for the wear would look at the Scheisslingers of the world and remember not so fondly:

Oh yeah, that's right, YOU were among those out there front and center, pimpin' for more-of-the-lame-same.

Then all those in and out of the government who pimped for more-of-the-lame-same can discover exciting new careers more befitting their core job skills -- such as dishwashers, septic tank cleaners, and best-case scenario, get a new job at sewage-treatment plants separating the S from the P.

By hand.

While wearing hip waders.

Because in their former careers as prime S generators they could spot S bobbing in a sea of P from a mile away.

dom youngross of OH 1:51AM December 02, 2011

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger is managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, overseeing all opinion editorial content. He is the author of "White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters." E-mail him at rschlesinger@usnews.com. Follow him on Twitter: @rschles.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

Calling Terrorism What It Is

Refusing to call terrorism by its name helps no one.

Latest Videos

advertisement