Speaker of the House
Acted Carelessly UCSD Guardian Opinion It is amazing how quickly the tide of political scandal
has changed. For the past four years the Republicans have
tried their best to catch Bill Clinton doing something
wrong. How ironic it is to see one of the Republicans' own
leaders caught with his hand in the cookie jar. A recent investigation by a House ethics subcommittee
found that Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich may have
misused tax-exempt funds for political purposes and "misled"
the subcommittee in its investigation of one of the numerous
complaints filed against him. His problems began when he served as House minority whip
and chairman of the chief fundraising organization of the
Republican Party, GOPAC. It appears that Gingrich may have
used non-profit, tax-exempt organizations to advance the
agenda of the Republican Party. The first alleged violation
occurred in 1990, when GOPAC used a tax-exempt organization,
with Gingrich's knowledge and approval, to fund one of
GOPAC's programs. The second case involves a college course Gingrich
taught, funded by tax-exempt organizations. Documents,
including letters, memos and transcripts of discussions made
by Gingrich, prove that Gingrich used the course for
political purposes by selling recordings of his lectures and
other class materials as a part of GOPAC's fundraising. The Internal Revenue Code clearly states that tax-exempt
organizations cannot participate in political activities or
provide support to political action committees such as
GOPAC. While the Ethics subcommittee did not find any violation
of the Internal Revenue Code, it did report that Gingrich
should have sought legal counsel to investigate the
propriety of using tax-exempt funds for such purposes. During the investigation into this matter by the Ethics
subcommittee, however, Gingrich committed an error more
serious than mere abuse of tax-exempt organizations.
Gingrich misled the subcommittee by submitting, through his
lawyer, several documents that claimed that GOPAC had no
involvement in the development and management of the courses
he taught. This claim was disproved via a bevy of memos, documents,
conversations and interviews that directly linked the course
to GOPAC. For this act of misleading the subcommittee,
Gingrich was found to have not conducted himself "in a
manner which shall reflect credibility on the House of
Representatives." Last month, Gingrich accepted the finding of the House
Ethics Investigative Subcommittee that he should have sought
legal advice about funding a college class that he taught.
In addition, Gingrich admitted that he provided inaccurate
and misleading information to the subcommittee. This
admission has hurt Gingrich's already tarnished reputation.
For the subcommittee to say that Gingrich should merely
have sat down and thought this violation out before he acted
is to flout the law that the committee is supposed to be
upholding. The law clearly states that tax-exempt
organizations are not allowed to take advantage of their
status by supporting a political party. Gingrich did in fact violate the tax code numerous times
and should be held accountable for his actions, even if he
was not aware of his transgressions. It is also very hard to accept that an ethics committee
considers it acceptable for Gingrich to use a publicly
funded college course for the primary purpose of promoting
Republican ideals. The people who sat in Gingrich's classes
were unwitting pawns in this shameless attempt to promote
the Republican party at the public's expense. The argument made by Gingrich that the course was
non-partisan does not hold water. GOPAC had an instrumental
part in the development and the management of the course.
For example, the name of the course, "Renewing American
Civilization," is the same as a political group that
Gingrich founded (and GOPAC supported). In fact, documents
and statements made by Gingrich cite the class as an
integral part of a plan to obtain control of the House of
Representatives from the Democrats and "make the government
accountable again." When the documents submitted by Gingrich to the
subcommittee turned out to be erroneous, Gingrich blamed his
lawyer, who resigned in anger. Gingrich then tried to
dismiss the situation as an oversight. Gingrich's detractors accuse him of lying, while his
supporters claim that it was a simple mistake. Considering
that the latter possibility may be true, his supporters must
think that Gingrich is either very stupid or did not read
the documents he filed with the committee. According to the
report published by the subcommittee, Gingrich reviewed and
signed the submissions before his lawyer presented them to
the committee. It's possible that Gingrich "accidentally" skipped over
the parts that "misled" the subcommittee. However, it seems
much more likely that Gingrich made those statements not
thinking that they would be harmful if discovered, and later
tried to salvage the situation by blaming his legal counsel.
Gingrich, after a solid start with the "Contract With
America," has finally had his past catch up to him. The
Ethics Committee must decide what punishment to give
Gingrich. At the very least, it should be a letter of
reprimand from the committee. At the most, it should be a
call to the House to prescribe punishment. In a sense, all this is poetic justice for Newt Gingrich.
In the 1980's, Gingrich was successful in his crusade to
oust Speaker of the House Jim Wright, a Democrat, for
Wright's ethics transgressions. Gingrich must realize that
"public office is a public trust" and begin to act
responsibly. He must learn to bear the office of Speaker of
the House with more dignity and accountability.
COMMENTARY: Even though Newt Gingrich was re-elected
last week to an office he previously tried to keep clean,
two incidents from his past threaten to weaken both the
office of speaker and his own political future
January 13, 1997