Newt Gingrich ethics investigation: 4 facts you haven't heard from him

Recently on the campaign trail, Newt Gingrich has made a number of forceful claims about the 1997 "reprimand" he received from the House Ethics Committee and challenged anyone to "go read the 1,300 pages” of the report. We did. Here’s what we found:

4. Gingrich admitted three allegations, none was dismissed prior to reprimand

Ruth Fremson/AP/File
House Speaker Newt Gingrich, flanked by House majority leader Dick Armey (l.) and Senate majority leader Trent Lott talks to reporters outside the White House on Nov. 12, 1996.

CNN ran an entire piece recently in which they pointed out that, on every single substantive count in the ethics investigation, every single one, that I was vindicated…” Newt Gingrich on ABC, Jan. 29, 2012

Gingrich has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that during his tenure in Congress he faced 84 politically-motivated ethics charges and that 83 of them were determined to be without merit and thrown out.

Again, the former speaker’s comments involve an apples-and-oranges comparison.

While it is true that Gingrich was frequently accused of wrongdoing by his Democratic rivals in Congress and that many of those charges were dismissed, the Ethics Committee reprimand was based on three charges approved by a bipartisan committee and later authorized by the full Republican-controlled House.

What Gingrich’s campaign statements do not acknowledge is that the Ethics Committee reprimand was based on three separate areas of wrongful conduct, not just one.

How three became one

In December 1996, after its year-long investigation, the subcommittee was poised to bring three charges against Gingrich to the full committee:

  • One involved Gingrich’s failure to seek legal advice concerning the alleged use of the tax-exempt Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation to support political activities in concert with Gingrich’s candidate-training program, GOPAC.
  • A second involved Gingrich’s failure to seek legal advice concerning the alleged use of the tax-exempt Progress and Freedom Foundation to support political activities in concert with GOPAC .
  • The third involved the alleged provision of two letters to the investigative subcommittee that were found to be inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.

That same month, Gingrich and the committee began negotiating the deal in which Gingrich would agree to accept a reprimand and pay $300,000. In exchange, Gingrich wanted the three charges repackaged as a single count.

He did not ask that any of the charges be dismissed, only that all three be consolidated as a single charge.

The committee report says the consolidated charge was to include “all of the conduct described in the original” three counts. Gingrich also asked that the word “knew” be removed from the portion of the charge discussing the submission of false and unreliable documents to the subcommittee.

Despite the repackaging, the underlying conduct supporting the original three charges remained in the document. 

Under these circumstances it is not accurate for Gingrich to claim that all but one of the Ethics Committee charges were dismissed, let alone that they were dismissed as "phony," as he told CNN on Jan. 22.

Ethics Committee Counsel James Cole was asked later why the committee agreed to repackage the three charges into a single count as Gingrich requested.

“The basic view of the members of the committee and myself was that that was fairly meaningless in terms of these proceedings,” Cole said at a press conference. “There would not be any extra sanction in my view, or in the view of the members, if there were three counts versus one count, as long as all the behavior and the conduct was adequately represented in the statement of alleged violation.”

Politics at play?

Fifteen years later, Gingrich is using the repackaging of the three allegations into one to imply not only that certain charges had been dismissed prior to his reprimand, but that he was an innocent victim of partisan politics.

The Democrats had filed 84 charges; 83 had been thrown out as totally phony,” Gingrich said in an interview with CNN on Jan. 22.

He returned to the issue during the Republican debate in Tampa.

“The Democrats had filed 84 ethics charges for a simple reason: We had taken control of the House after 40 years, and they were very bitter,” he said.

There is no doubt that politics played a role in the Gingrich ethics battle, but at the time of his reprimand Republicans controlled the House.

The bipartisan Ethics Committee voted 7 to 1 (3 Republicans and 4 Democrats against 1 Republican) to recommend to the full House of Representatives that Gingrich be sanctioned. The House agreed, voting 395 to 28.

It marked the first time in the history of Congress that a speaker has received a reprimand for unethical conduct.

Some Republicans refused to support the committee’s recommendation of a reprimand, but most voted to approve the sanction.

“I found it extraordinarily imprudent of Mr. Gingrich not to seek and follow a less aggressive course of action in tax areas he knew to be sensitive and controversial,” investigation subcommittee chairman Porter Goss (R) of Florida said after the vote. “And even more troubling, I found the fact that the committee was given inaccurate, unreliable, and incomplete information to be a very serious failure on his part.” 

4 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.