Newt 2012 Letter to TV Stations Regarding False Ads From Romney's Super PAC

Re: False and Misleading Advertisements Produced by the “Restore Our Future” Super PAC

This letter issues on behalf of Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (the “House”), Republican candidate for President of the United States, and his principal campaign committee, Newt 2012, Inc.

It has recently come to our attention that your station has either been asked to run, or may soon be asked to run, various advertising spots produced by the Mitt Romney aligned Super PAC, Restore Our Future, Inc. (“ROF”). Included among the Romney advertisements submitted to your station for broadcast are likely to be various spots that specifically mention Speaker Gingrich and assert that he partnered with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in support of legislation providing financial support for China’s “one-child policy.”

The content of these advertisements state and/or suggest that Speaker Gingrich “co-sponsored a bill with Nancy Pelosi that would have given $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China’s brutal one-child policy.” This statement is fundamentally NOT TRUE, or as PolitiFact.org put it – a “Pants on Fire” lie. In fact, as clearly shown by the language of the actual legislation at issue and the false ratings given to these ROF ads by various media and fact-check organizations, ANY statement, suggestion, or innuendo that Speaker Gingrich supported China’s one-child policy or worked with Congresswoman Pelosi to provide funds for such a policy is fundamentally false and misleading. If published after your receipt of this letter, it will be a knowing publication of a false statement. As such, it represents a defamatory communication, which exposes this station to potential civil liability.

In turn, we do hereby DEMAND that your station immediately REFUSE, and if started, CEASE airing any such advertisements and refrain from broadcasting their content until such time as the libelous statements have been removed.

Any statement or suggestion that Speaker Gingrich worked with Speaker Pelosi to provide funding for a U.N. program supporting China’s “one-child policy” is unequivocally false. A basic review of the piece of legislation referenced in ROF’s advertisements undeniably establishes the invalidity of such an accusation.

The statement of concern in ROF’s advertisements relates to a piece of legislation known as House Resolution 1078, which was introduced on February 22, 1989 but never passed. That bill, labeled as the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989, primarily set national goals for the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide and encouraged countries around the world to forge agreements addressing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the legislation required the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor various environmental problems associated with greenhouse gases and develop plans for a future administrative response to such problems.

As part of these efforts, the bill also called for the federal government to provide financial support to certain developing countries that endeavored to pursue economic growth in an environmentally-sensitive fashion. In conjunction with this financial aid effort, the language of H.R. 1078 specifically called for monetary support of the United Nations Population Fund (“UNPF”), an international development agency focused on helping developing countries and their citizens tackle various problems associated with population growth, migration, aging, climate change, urbanization, gender inequality, poverty, and disease.

The language in the ROF advertisements at issue specifically contends that H.R. 1078 would have provided $60 million a year to UNPF, which may or may not have been involved in supporting family planning activities in China. According to ROF, this would have included financial support for the nation’s one-child policy, the Chinese government’s effort to limit internal population growth to one child per couple through methods such as forced sterilization and abortion. As set forth below, however, this ROF contention regarding H.R. 1078 is fundamentally and absolutely FALSE.

The claim is false because the explicit language of H.R. 1078, Section 1102, Part C specifically prohibits any funding provided under the bill to be used for “the performance of involuntary sterilization or abortion or to coerce any person to accept family planning.” (See Attachment #1, p. 2). Based upon this provision in the legislation, no funding (let alone 60 million dollars) could have been provided to UNPF if it in any way participated in activities associated with, supporting or promoting China’s one-child policy. And no matter what ROF claims to the contrary, H.R. 1078 clearly prohibits the federal government from providing a single dollar of assistance to any public health or aid organization supporting sterilization, abortion, or coerced family planning in China or any other country.

Beyond these facts, however, it is also important to note that the veracity of ROF’s one-child policy claims has been openly called into question by a variety of impartial observers since the Super PAC first began producing television spots attacking Gingrich’s co-sponsorship of H.R. 1078. When ROF ran similar spots in Florida leading up to the state’s January 31st presidential preference primary, PolitiFact Florida openly criticized the claim and characterized it as “Pants on Fire”, its lowest “Truth-O-Meter” rating and a brand of abject falsity. (See Attachment #2). In light of ROF’s recent decision to run ads making the same statements in Georgia, PolitiFact Georgia has also reached the same conclusion – rating ROF’s one-child policy claim a “Pants on Fire” lie. (See Attachment #3). Other members of the news media have also picked up on PolitiFact’s analysis and/or independently reported on the falsity of ROF’s one-child policy claims, including The New Yorker, The Atlantic, ABC News, FactCheck.org, and WZVN-TV in Florida. (See Attachment #4, pg. 2 & Attachments #5-7).

In sum, there is absolutely no support for the one-child policy claims made by ROF in its latest Georgia advertisements. Not only does the language of the legislation itself stand in direct contradiction to ROF’s statements about Speaker Gingrich, but various neutral parties have independently assessed the one-child policy claims and judged them to be fundamentally untrue. As such, this station should consider statements attempting to link Speaker Gingrich to support for China’s one-child policy in any ROF advertising as patently false, misleading, and defamatory. And, given the fact that the language of H.R. 1078 is abundantly clear and part of the general public record, we are left with no other conclusion but to assume that such communications by ROF are made with either knowledge or reckless disregard of their inherent falsity.

Through the above repudiation of the falsities contained within ROF’s present Georgia television spots regarding Speaker Gingrich and H.R. 1078, your station has been given notice and absolute knowledge of the defamatory nature of such advertisements. As a result, any further attempt to broadcast or communicate such advertisements or any of their inaccurate content to the general public will expose your station to potential liability for both libel and false light invasion of privacy. In turn, and as previously stated above, we do hereby request that your station immediately cease airing any such false advertisements and completely refrain from broadcasting their content until such time as the aforementioned defamatory statements have been removed.

Please govern your actions accordingly. We look forward to receiving your prompt reply to this correspondence and request that any questions regarding its contents be directed to my attention.

I just saved your video....loved hearing Newt’s sound bits and they say it all. Foolish people who cannot see that Newt is the only hope we have for this country....he, as with Reagan, knows how to inspire the country once again...and it’s in bad need of just that. Unlike other candidates who simply spew out the same old stuff..Newt believes fully in what he’s saying...and has his great record of accomplishments to back that up...no other can say the same!

Looks like Santorum is pushing Romney points in his adds. Still, I wouldn't have expected Santorum to knock on Newt as he's doing unless he's become Romneys "boy"...which looks now to be the case. Santorum will do whatever it takes to secure his own political ambitions. He's done this before in PA. and he's all about whatever win he can slip under his own belt and that has priority over everything else including this country.

I have no reason to believe he did. Of course, several people who were close to Ronald Reagan say he hardly knew Newt Gingrich. And Newt doesn’t figure into his memoirs.

But all I really want to remind people is that Nancy Reagan did NOT say that the torch was passed to Newt alone, but to the entire republican congress. Each time it is brought up, it reminds people that Newt claimed as a personal thing something that was in fact given to his colleagues as well.

If you are saying that Gingrich did not say he’d spend $500 billion on a moon colony, I totally agree. This is typical of campaign commercials, they take the ITEMS people propose, and look around for independent cost analysis for the proposal, and use that as if the candidate was really going to implement the proposal.

I think it’s more reasonable to say that Newt wants to encourage space exploration, and a moon colony is a great idea to do so, but he doesn’t expect to actually build a moon colony in our lifetime, because it would be way too expensive. And no private group is going to do it right now, because it wouldn’t come close to being cost-effective in any way.

“Newt wants to encourage space exploration”

... and to encourage young people to study electronics, space medicine, math, to get the spirit of research and great aspirations (P.S. other than to become rappers).

It is true that China is actively working on the project of a moon colony.

Newt hopes that there will be an American one first. I see nothing wrong with that. The world needs dreamers to advance the progress of humanity. Just remember that 30 years ago the idea of a personal computer was considered impossible...

In his time Leonardo da Vinci was considered an illuminate dreamer ... but his dreams were accomplished centuries later, and people learned to build helicopters, planes and tanks ...

“several people who were close to Ronald Reagan say he hardly knew Newt Gingrich.”

That’s NONSENSE

Ed Rollins, who was Reagan’s national campaignes organizer, said that’s bulls..t, coming right from Romney’s headquarters:

“I’m going to straighten it out once and for all: Gingrich was a very important congressional ally. Congressmen aren’t in the White House all day long, and they’re not basically giving advice. But he and Jack Kemp and Trent Lott and others were among 10 or 12 most important players and most loyal to Ronald Reagan. At the same time, Mitt Romney was an independent and he was not on the political scene at all. It’s stupid argument. They ought to be talk about this future, not the past.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjOMMweAJ_s

If I had a quote from Nancy Reagan, I would have said there was a quote from Nancy Reagan.

I said there were reports, because there were reports. You don’t have to believe the reports. But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, merely that they don’t meet your standard of evidence.

Which doesn’t concern me — I’m not the one trying to claim that Gingrich was personally handed the Ronald Reagan torch. The quote from Nancy Reagan doesn’t say he was, so it’s really up to you to show that Nancy Reagan really just meant Newt Gingrich. Do you have any “reports” or “quotes” that Nancy has come out and confirmed that Newt Gingrich was the sole heir to the torch?

I guess we could trade competing quotes, but I’m sure you would say that you don’t believe any of the people at the links I would cite, and I don’t really care one way or another.

My point was that of course Santorum wouldn’t be known by Reagan, because Santorum didn’t become a congressman until 1991, well after Reagan was gone from the scene. And I’m not insisting that Nancy Reagan was personally passing the torch to anybody, much less Rick Santorum.

You are the one who is claiming with no evidence that Gingrich was the new Torch-bearer. So as I said to lonevoice — show me a quote from Nancy Reagan (she’s still alive, so she could confirm if she wanted) that she actually meant to just give the torch to Gingrich.

Right now all you have is a quote from 1995 where she passed the torch to the entire Republican congress. Since you are claiming that she didn’t mean that, it’s really up to you to provide some evidence.

Of course, this entire argument is stupid. We should be discussing what Gingrich has been up to the last 5 years, not what someone said about him before he started his job as Majority Leader over 15 years ago, in another century.

A collection of a few of your posts, just from today:

Thank you for the confirmation of what I posted way back up the thread. Nancy didn’t pass the torch just to Newt, she passed it to ALL the Republican members of Congress. Santorum was one of those members, so Ronnie passed the torch to Rick Santorum.

I stay out of the “Gingrich” threads, but it’s hard when they turn into baseless personal attacks on Rick Santorum.

I don’t know — you are calling me a Newt-basher, but I have virtually avoided any thread that was about Gingrich.

You've made thirteen posts today, twelve of them on Gingrich threads, showing that you're less than honest, nevermind that you contradict yourself repeatedly, and claim not to have said what you actually said all within the span of a few posts on just this one thread.

Your sophistry is ridiculous.

I explained why I was in this “Gingrich” thread. And not once in this thread did I say anything negative about Newt Gingrich. I defended Santorum against an unrelated attack, and corrected misinformation about Nancy Reagan.

You can call it whatever you want — the fact is there is no evidence Nancy Reagan said Ronnie passed the torch just to Newt, and all the other arguments made — who had whose picture taken, who had Michael Reagan’s endorsement, who was “known” by Reagan” — provided any evidence to contradict the clear meaning of what Nancy Reagan actually said.

SO unless you have a quote from Nancy Reagan or her aides that in fact she meant to say Ronnie personally passed his legacy onto just Newt Gingrich, I’d say you have nothing more to add to that particular question.

Every claim I’ve made in this thread I backed up with a link — people want to misrepresent my argument, and I can’t stop them, but what I said is true, and is cited.

BTW, this is why I generally stay out of Newt threads — not because I can’t easily argue the points, but because it’s pointless to bother, even to defend Santorum against baseless attacks. People want to say what they want, they don’t want to be questioned, and they certainly don’t want to have a discussion.

And you can’t have any complicated argument with people who want to deny clear meaning to make stupid points they think are good “debate” points but would be laughed at in any REAL debate.

I’d like him to explain why the deuce he pushed this amendment, what was his rationale???

In 2002, Santorum supported an amendment that would have extended voting rights to prisoners who had finished their terms and no longer were on parole or probation. He was one of only three Republicans in the Senate to do so.

BTW, the amendment was criticized as an infringement on states’ rights, and it failed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.