Lobbyists have to register as lobbyists.
There are strict rules, which include the number of hours spent lobbying and the percentage of money spent.
Newt Gingrich was never a lobbyist.
Romney is desperate.
Yep - another lie by Mitt and another bit of proof that Newt has been up-front honest. Let's hope enough folks make the distinction and value honesty.
And let's not forget that it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is!
But let's just focus on the legal definition of "lobbyist." And if Gingrich didn't meet that, then regardless that he was hired by Freddie Mac to " 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, " since he didn't register as a lobbyist, he wasn't peddling his influence.
Just like he wasn't peddling his influence when he created the FOR-PROFIT Center for Health Transformation, dedicated to imposing an INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, and he charged up to $200,000 a year for Big Pharma and Big Insurance companies to access to him.
Some may console themselves with the fact that Gingrich was never a registered lobbyist, but that's beside the point of WHAT he was supporting and HOW.
It's completely myopic to argue "Newt wasn't a registered lobbyist, THEREFORE there's nothing to see here, move along."
There is no excuse for any conservative to have anything to do with supporting Freddie Mac against his own party's efforts to regulate it. And I don't trust a man who has literally devoted his life to the individual healthcare mandate when he says, all of a sudden, that he'll repeal Obamacare, well, most of it."
Look, if you don't have any concerns about Gingrich's Freddie Mac dealings, or his dealings with the health insurance industry and his decades-long advocacy of an individual mandate, then we disagree.
But please don't post to me obvious crap about the legal definition of a lobbyist -- which I had already specifically said Gingrich was not a registered lobbyist, therefore he did not meet the legal definition of a lobbyist -- DUH -- then imply that since Gingrich didn't meet the legal definition of a lobbyist, his conduct was not and could not have been questionable from a conservative point-of-view.
Thanks.
The fact that Romney is desperate is irrelevant to whether or not one finds Gingrich's support of Freddie Mac (and climate change, and his Education Tour with Al Sharpton, and the individual mandate, etc.) a matter for pause.