Newt Gingrich's Freddie Mac Contract Released

Center for Health Transformation ^

[Utmost Certainty]

Document Shows No Lobbying By Former Speaker

ATLANTA - The Gingrich Group, LLC today announced it is releasing a contract written by Freddie Mac for consulting services it contracted with the organization.

“Subject to a conversation between our counsel and Freddie Mac, we have received permission to release the attached contract,” said Nancy Desmond, Chairman and CEO of the Gingrich Group. “As noted under the scope of work section on Page 14, the contract was solely for consulting purposes and not lobbying.

“Freddie Mac and The Gingrich Group have agreed that this release is limited to the contract alone and does not constitute a general release of the confidentiality provisions between us,” Desmond added. Newt Gingrich relinquished his ownership in the company in May 2010 when he announced his bid for President of the United States.

[musicman]

I just got back on FR. GREAT NEWS about Fred!!

Thanks for the ping!!!

[JRochelle]

He should charge a lot more!!

How else will Calista be able to continue spending hundreds of thousands of dollars at Tiffany and Co??

[presently no screen name]

in May 2010 when he announced his bid for President

Shouldn't that be 2011? Hate for them to start off with saying it's in error because of that!

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

As for the Bamster, Newt should also release his college transcripts immediately and ask why Obama won’t do the same!

* * *

Yes, Newt should do exactly that - release EVERYTHING - but not now. He should do it about an hour before his first debate with Obama. (My guess is that, under pressure, Obama will agree to two debates.) Then Newt can ask, “So, Mr. President, you and your staff have seen my information. Where is all YOUR information?” . . . and watch Bambi stutter along without his teleprompter to help him. Good times!!! ;o)

[maryz]

Newt's name does not appear in any of these [lobbying databases], nor do any of his organizations.

What I don't understand is why anyone would think Freddie Mac would hire Newt to lobby for them . . . in 1996, the dems were poised to take Congress, Freddie Mac had the dems in their back pocket (probably some GOPers too), the dems hated Newt, the GOP-E hated Newt. Plus Newt does have rather an abrasive manner (personally I like his personality -- LOL).

As far as I can see, Freddie Mac was sitting pretty (and way prettier than Newt); it would be more credible that Newt would hire Freddie Mac to lobby for him.

Maybe I just don't understand the lobbying/influence-peddling business . . . wouldn't be the first thing I didn't understand . . . :(

[midwyf]

Actually I believe that is only part of it, they can’t “find” the rest.

[combat_boots]

“Lol...we pay expert programmers that rate.”

PeopleSoft and SAP come to mind. $175/hour and up.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

So all this talk about Newt getting “millions” or even “1.5 million” from Fannie Mae is BS. The money came in over a period of years, and as the contract indicates, it was paid at a maximum of $25,000 per month, at a completely reasonable billing rate for Newt’s services.

That's not exactly an accurate description of the contract's terms. He wasn't paid by the hour, he was paid a flat rate of $25,000 per month, without regard to how many hours he worked. The hourly rate people have been discussing in this thread is based on that monthly rate, and assumes that Newt worked 20-40 hours a week on this contract. There is no indication, in the contract or anywhere else, of how many hours/week Newt worked under this contract.

[maryz]

There is no indication, in the contract or anywhere else, of how many hours/week Newt worked under this contract.

Wouldn't it also have covered, say, research assistants, with the costs of overhead and secretarial calculated in?

[BagCamAddict]

True. Sort of. The flat rate is for each full month, so apparently it would be prorated for less than a full month (which is why I used the phrasing of "a maximum of $25,000 per month).

And we can certainly over-analyze it if we want to.

I broke it down to an hourly rate for easy mental comparison, because we can assume that the Gingrich Group did SOME work for that $25,000, as opposed to it being a "retainer" where the Gingrich Group does no work but is on standby in case the client needs to use them. The $25,000 was to be paid "in exchange for" the Gingrich Group providing "consulting and related services as requested."

So you're right, it was not an hourly rate, it was a lump sum for a full month, assuming SOME work was done during that full month.

[Jukeman]

Exactly!

[newzjunkey]

Excellent; I'm glad FM was accommodating to allow the contract release.

This emphasizes what I was saying to those who said Newt should release everything that Romney demanded -- Newt doesn't control what can be released, he's under confidentiality agreements.

[supremedoctrine]

The only way for Gingrich to put this “issue” to rest TOTALLY
is to offer some accounting for the ACTUAL work, what group of people worked on it, how much research it involved, and what the final report was, and how his conclusions about the Fannie/Freddie operation were arrived at, in reference to the conclusions the research and evaluation finally arrived at.
Otherwise it will look like Newt was just in it to bilk the taxpayer, in concert with Fannie and Freddie. We know all the final conclusions of the Gingrich Group were NEGATIVE, and the interesting thing is of course that the criticism for Newt’s involvement AT ALL with Fannie/Freddie could ONLY come from his GOP opponents, not the Left.The Left couldn’t get much mileage out of badmouthing anyone’s evaluation of this beloved institution of theirs just because the final objective evaluation of it was negative.