Was Gingrich a lobbyist? He sure comes off that way.

The Washington Post - Post Opinions ^ | 11/30/2011 | Jennifer Rubin

[PieterCasparzen]

Mitt Romney has finally begun to engage Newt Gingrich. Yesterday, he went after Gingrich, if not by name, by attacking him as a creature of Washington.

...

Federal law defines lobbying activity as “Lobbying contacts and any efforts in support of such contacts, including preparation or planning activities, research and other background work that is intended, at the time of its preparation, for use in contacts and coordination with the lobbying activities of others.” And a lobbying contact is “Any oral, written or electronic communication to a covered official that is made on behalf of a client with regard to” congressmen and senators, among others.

...

Even before the Times story, there was ample evidence suggesting that Gingrich was engaged in this sort of lobbying activities. For example, Bloomberg reported, former Freddie Mac officials “say the former House speaker was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.”

...

First, the Gingrich camp says he believed in his clients’ positions before he was hired.

...

Tony Fratto, a former Bush administration official and now a partner in his own consulting firm, scoffed at this rationale. “The Gingrich standard seems to be that it’s not lobbying because he was previously sympathetic to the policies for which he advocated. That’s a novel distinction but unfortunately not one recognized in the law.”

The next Gingrich justification, his lawyer says, is that he followed “ ‘specific protocols and procedures’ that [his health-care outfit] designed to ensure he stayed within the law.” Well, where are those protocols and procedures, and what do they say? A Gingrich spokesman did not respond to my request for such documents, if they exist.

...

[PieterCasparzen]

After a series of ups and downs amongst the various Republican candidates, whether beltway strategists intended or even internally predicted, a large part of the grassroots of conservatism, which thinks it is charging forth under the banner of defeating the establishment, is actually falling in line behind one of their men. Money, power and influence, using the timeless tactics of bravado and fear, are setting up once again to induce the sheep to trot over giddily to the slaughterhouse to conquer the knife.

[G Larry]

“Lobbyist” has a legal definition and typically refers to an individual “registered” as such.

Newt was NOT that!

Just because somebody is advocating an interest or a point of view for pay, does NOT make one a lobbyist!

[muawiyah]

Besides, the only issue of legal interest is the "registered lobbyist" part. Advocating for one or the other positions on public issues is, in fact, guaranteed in the FIRST AMENDMENT ~ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The whole business of forcing "paid lobbyists" to register is, of course, on thin ice and could be changed by the Supreme Court at some time in the future on a whim.

[muawiyah]

BTW, Jennifer Rubin is a Fascist Pig.

[bigbob]

A) as Palin would say “stop making stuff up”. Words have meanings. “Lobbying” is a specific word with a specific meaning, and it’s not what Newt did.

B) who cares?

[Old Sarge]

Leftist from WaPo writing a hit piece about Newt.

And this is noteworthy because....?

[PaleoBob]

Stunning that someone who writes for the Post does not comprehend what a “lobbyist” is. Or does she simply lie here?

She’s either stupid or a liar.

[Hugin]

All those words and innuendos, and she still can't cite any law being broken.

[Perdogg]

Is Jennifer Rubin a man - she sure looks likes one!

[PieterCasparzen]

“Lobbyist” has a legal definition and typically refers to an individual “registered” as such.

(from the article...)

--------------------- Federal law defines lobbying activity as “Lobbying contacts and any efforts in support of such contacts, including preparation or planning activities, research and other background work that is intended, at the time of its preparation, for use in contacts and coordination with the lobbying activities of others.” And a lobbying contact is “Any oral, written or electronic communication to a covered official that is made on behalf of a client with regard to” congressmen and senators, among others.

Even before the Times story, there was ample evidence suggesting that Gingrich was engaged in this sort of lobbying activities. For example, Bloomberg reported, former Freddie Mac officials “say the former House speaker was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.” Sounds like preparation for use in a lobbying contact, doesn’t it?

The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney expanded on the story, reporting: “A former employee of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, (the main industry lobby) told me Gingrich was being paid by someone in the industry at the time. A spokeswoman for Gingrich’s health care consulting firm, Center for Health Transformation, told me that drug companies have been CHT clients. PhRMA confirmed in a statement that they had paid Gingrich. Bloomberg News cited sources from leading drug companies Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer saying that those companies had also hired Gingrich.”

And what did he do? “Three former Republican congressional staffers told me that Gingrich was calling around Capitol Hill and visiting Republican congressmen in 2003 in an effort to convince conservatives to support a bill extending Medicare to include prescription-drug subsidies.” That’s lobbying. An attorney specializing in campaign laws told me on the phone today that this scenario, if accurate, is lobbying, plain and simple."

---------------------

BTW, I read the Bloomberg article. Can't post it here, of course, but if you search you certainly will find it.

If you read it, you'll see that Newt layed out their lobbying plans for them. He just didn't do the actual legwork. The fact that he was the lobbying architect is laid out very clearly. He was hired by Hollis McLoughlin, a former Treasury Department chief of staff in President George H.W. Bush’s administration, who was hired by Freddie to head the whole effort to gain Republican support. McLoughlin also hired Frank Luntz.

Gingrich was hired to identify potentially supportive Republicans on Capitol Hill. He was also hired to develop written material that could be circulated amongst conservatives as well as "outside organizations", whatever that means. If this is not a plan for lobbying I don't know what is, given that the Federal law is:

"including preparation or planning activities, research and other background work that is intended, at the time of its preparation, for use in contacts and coordination with the lobbying activities of others"

That's only for this specific case. Newt has been doing lobbying-related activities exclusively, skirting the law by a) not registering as a lobbyist and b) playing it real cute as far as trying to keep everything within the technicalities of the law. IMHO, if this is actually investigated, or if any one of hundreds of people come forward and give specific examples of conversations he's had with them - Newt would be sunk.

Makes me very worried that Obama's people could spring this on him in the general election bigtime. Think about it - there are thousands of people, undoubtedly, that he has been at meetings with - everything from his own clients privately to Bilderberg meetings. I'd be surprised if his "I was not a lobbyist" will not come back to haunt the Republican party.

Mittens is clearly an establishment guy that conservatives would be foolish to support; but I'm hoping Newt is not just as bad in the end.

I don't know, we can't seem to shrink or even change Washington at all.

IMHO.

[Parley Baer]

“Just because somebody is advocating an interest or a point of view for pay, does NOT make one a lobbyist!”

That makes him a consultant. Obviously that fact has escaped Jennifer among many other facts. She is really a tool for the RINO establishment.

[Prokopton]

“Lobbyist” has a legal definition and typically refers to an individual “registered” as such.“Lobbyist” has a legal definition and typically refers to an individual “registered” as such.>

Yes, it does have a "legal definition". That legal definition, which comes from federal law, is quoted in the article, and Gingrich clearly fits the "legal definition" of a lobbyist. "typically referring to" is not a "legal definition".

[o2bfree]

Without a doubt, Newt Gingrich will cut off the liberal establishment republican socialists and the communist democrat money streams by balancing the Federal budget.

Romney on the other hand will increase federal spending and will gladly give his cronies in the establishment, the socialist republicans, huge bonuses and raises for helping him get elected and for destroying Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Newt.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Give it up Jennifer. Newt was not lobbying. That dog is just not hunting.