In politics, what goes around comes around — especially if you’re running for president.
In 1988, then-Congressman Newt Gingrich’s success in bringing down Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright on ethics charges helped propel the Georgian into the House GOP leadership.
But in 1994, then-Speaker Gingrich became the subject of his own lengthy ethics investigation. Although he was not found guilty on any of the 84 charges, the probe resulted in a reprimand from the House Ethics Committee, a $300,000 fine, dwindling support from the Republican caucus and his eventual resignation from Congress.
“I’m willing to lead,” Gingrich said, announcing his departure in 1998, “but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals.”
Now, Republicans are at one another once again, and those old ethics charges have become ammunition for Mitt Romney and the Super PAC that backs him, which saturation- bombed voters in Florida and Nevada with ads replaying news clips from that time.
The ads contributed to Romney’s game-changing win in Florida, which blunted the momentum of Gingrich’s South Carolina victory, and they continue to be effective, analysts say.
“There’s no question that those ads have had a devastating effect on Gingrich,” said Dan Schnur, a California political analyst who directed the 2000 primary campaign of John McCain. “Not surprisingly, the Romney campaign and his outside allies are going to continue to attack on this front.”
However, both Gingrich friends and foes question whether voters remember or understand the ethics episode, which sometimes seems like a scene out of “Rashomon,” a film that tells a tale from several points of view, none of which fully mesh.
The controversy grew from a course of study Gingrich developed in 1993 for Kennesaw State College (now Kennesaw State University) called Renewing American Civilization. The course was billed as a broad look at “the core pillars of American civilization,” and examined such abstract concepts as “personal strength,” “economic growth” and “the spirit of invention and discovery.”
Available to 150 graduate and undergraduate students, the course would also be offered through a satellite uplink and would be recorded on video and audio cassettes to be redistributed across the country.
To cover the additional costs of production, Gingrich solicited tax-deductible donations to the college’s foundation. Some contributions came from Gingrich supporters and from GOPAC, the Republican political action committee that he took over in 1986. GOPAC executive director Jeffrey Eisenach resigned from the PAC to run the course.
Forty Kennesaw professors signed a petition in opposition to the course, describing it as partisan and citing its ties to GOPAC. The state Board of Regents agreed, and passed a rule against elected officials teaching at public universities, whereupon the course was moved to the private Reinhardt College in Waleska the following year, funded by the Gingrich-related Progress and Freedom Foundation
Though material promoting the course promised it would spark a grassroots uprising that would help Republicans win a decisive “victory,” Gingrich followers who attended the lectures — or listened to them on tape — said that it was enlightening, not partisan. “It was not a political stump speech,” said Thomas Glanton of Dallas, Ga., a former state representative and longtime Gingrich supporter.
Gingrich’s opponent in the 1994 election was former “Dukes of Hazzard” TV star and two-time U.S. Rep. Ben Jones. Two days before election day, Jones handed an ethics complaint to the House committee, objecting to Gingrich’s use of charitable donations to fund the college course. The ensuing investigation took more than two years.
In 1997 the House Ethics Committee dismissed all but one of the 84 charges and left it up to the IRS to investigate the remaining charge: that he violated the law by using tax-exempt donations to fund a politically-motivated activity. By 1999, when the IRS determined that Gingrich did not break tax law, he was already out of office.
Speaking on CNN last month, Gingrich said he had been “exonerated” of the charges and characterized the $300,000 fine as a “reimbursement” for the costs of the investigation.
“They didn’t find him guilty of a durn thing,” said Mel Steely of Carrollton, Gingrich biographer and former staff member, who decries what he calls Romney’s misleading ads. “You can’t turn the TV on without this terrible onslaught against Gingrich. It’s just unrelenting.”
However, House committee members wrote in the final report that Gingrich’s “misleading statements” unnecessarily prolonged their ethics investigation. According to the report, a letter from Gingrich in October 1994 stated that GOPAC paid for some of the costs of running the course, but letters sent that winter and the following spring claimed that GOPAC was not involved.
Gingrich agreed to the fine, admitted wrongdoing and confessed to supplying the committee with inaccurate information. He wrote at the time: “I brought down on the people’s house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government.”
Few people will remember the details, said Thomas Hollihan, author of “Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns and the Media Age,” and a professor of media and politics at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. But their forgetfulness won’t necessarily work to Gingrich’s advantage.
By replaying the most damaging news reports on the incidents, the Romney ads obscure other developments that might serve to mitigate the charges, he said.
The ads also fail to capture the bitterly partisan atmosphere of the era, said Gingrich supporter Elizabeth Klemman of Augusta. Democratic anger against the newly-victorious Republicans was focused on Gingrich, she said. “People who had so much power had to relinquish it, and they didn’t do it gracefully,” she said. “It was a witch hunt.”
But Jones, who ran unsuccessfully against Gingrich, said Gingrich himself was responsible for some of the most strident language of the time. “He perfected the politics of personal destruction,” Jones said.
Schnur, the political analyst, said the Gingrich campaign can survive the issue, but that it distracts from his message. “‘Innocent on all charges’ is a legitimate defense,” he said, “but it’s not much of a bumper sticker. Even though he’s got a good answer, he’s still talking about what Romney wants him to be talking about.”
About the Author
