Skip to comments.Gingrich Earned Twice As Much As Previously Disclosed From Ethanol Lobbying Group
Posted on 12/20/2011 4:24:14 AM PST by PieterCasparzen
Newt Gingrich earned some $600,000 as a consultant to a major ethanol lobbying group, not the $312,500 that the organization, called Growth Energy, disclosed last spring.
When quizzed by iWatch News in April, Growth Energy spokesman Chris Thorne said Gingrichs contract ended after 2009. Attributing the mistake to an internal miscommunication, Thorne now says that Gingrich remained on the payroll through 2010 and earned an additional $262,500.
Thorne said that Gingrich continued to work for Growth Energy for the first few months of 2011 as well, but he could not say how much the former Speaker was paid.
Growth Energy was founded in late 2008 by the worlds top ethanol producer the South Dakota based POET group and other fuel companies to promote the use of the alternative fuel. According to the companys Web site, Gingrich was paid to offer advice on strategy and communication issues and to speak positively on ethanol related topics to the media.
Gingrichs ties to the industry have been a boon, no doubt, to his presidential campaign in a farm state like Iowa. But his embrace of federal ethanol subsidies has irritated some conservatives, who believe that government intervention in the economy violates free-market principles.
Gingrich got into a well-publicized spat with the editorial page editors of the Wall Street Journal they called him Professor Cornpone a year ago, compelling him to declare, I am not a lobbyist for ethanol.
(Excerpt) Read more at njtoday.net ...
That list is pretty useless. Lumping in tax breaks with subsidies is a leftist/commie tactic to manipulate peoples perception.
Two-a-days have just begun for Gingrich. We’ll be hit with so many revelations, associations, deals, partnerships, gifts, purchases, trips, etc. that we’ll be expected to believe he’s Corzine’s twin. It will come so fast that Gingrich will be on his heels for the entire process. Other than his forward-thinking, his energetic speech and debate skills, his knowledge of the political system, his presence through history, I don’t find comfort in knowing Conservatives are flocking to him. This is turning into an interesting novel moving toward an end I’m not happy with.
Vote Perry. He can’t debate. He smiles too much. There was a rock on his ranch. He carries out policies voted on by the Texas legislature. He talks like a Texas boy. Other than that? He was an All-American Boy Scout. He is a graduate of an All-American college. He put on his country’s All-American uniform. He and his family are Christians. He’s a supporter of the belief that America is the best place on earth. A lot for your kids and grandkids to be inspired by. He’s a sitting governor of a great state. He doesn’t teach college classes. He’ll take care of America’s business.
So which candidate will replace Newt in the span of two weeks if we take him to task for his past mistakes? Who else has enough support to defeat Willard Romney the open socialist?
Willard Romney, who compulsively talks out of both sides of his mouth so he claim any particular position down the road.
Willard Romney, who signed socialized medicine into law and thinks it’s great if the other states follow suit.
Willard Romney, the political featherweight who lost to a vulnerable Ted Kennedy in 1994 despite a disastrous turnout for Democrats. He couldn’t even defeat John McCain in 2008, let alone Barack Obama!
I’d like to see Rick Santorum or Rick Perry eclipse Newt in the polls, but with so little time remaining between now and January, barring a miracle, it’s simply not going to happen. We have to support Newt or we’ll end up with the socialist (note the pun).
NEWT is counting on his gift of gab to win the electorate. It will work on some but it won’t be enough.
.”The former House Speaker spoke to a crowd of 175 likely caucus goers in the Cedar Rapids suburb of Hiawatha on Monday. Much of his talk focused on the barrage of criticism he has faced since vaulting to the lead in the presidential race.
These are people who apparently have nothing positive to offer, Gingrich said. Do you really want to reward politics as usual? Or do you want to vote for the only person who has been consistently, steadily positive throughout the campaign.
.The next time you see one of the candidates whos running the negative ads, ask them to take it off the air immediately, Gingrich implored the eastern Iowa crowd. Because the only person who it helps in the long run is Barack Obama.
..For the most part, Gingrich avoided responding to the criticisms from his opponents. But the constant browbeat is too much to resist at times. A couple ads say Gingrich isnt a consistent conservative. Im not going to get too much into responding to that, but when they talk about a consistent conservative, one wonders how they would know one if they saw it.
.Later, Gingrich asked the crowd, Which one of us would you like to have standing on a platform with Barack Obama?
Not sure why people are jumping for joy. Obama will run against Romney, if Newt doesn’t make it. Obamaâs America and Romney’s America are not much different. Our country will continue to decline, only the rate at which it happens will differ. Cheers.
Looks like Newt has some people scared. So he used his name as a lobbyist so what? Are any of them campaigning against ethanol?
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
I’m not working for any candidate.
If you look at my entire history, you will never find me saying that I would vote for Romney or Paul.
The candidates that I’ve always said were the most likely to help America were Bachmann, Cain and Santorum.
I was not so opposed to Newt until people here started blindly pushing him after Cain was “dropped out” (oh and many here said good riddance). I was not happy with the way he handled the exit - I think Cain is a no-go for any office from here on because of that. He should have immediately supported either Bachmann or Santorum.
I bothered to do some simple searches and came up with tons of published articles detailing Newt’s grey-area lobbying since he left office. I’m not talking at all about opinions or analysis, just the raw information that is reported. If someone has been “consulting” to further various political causes like he has for 10 years, it’s painfully obvious that he’s using his influence, which is lobbying in the spirit of the law if not the letter.
The only reason he’s saying he’s not a lobbyist is because that would drop off a lot of his support. Amazing - he’s functionally equivalant to a lobbyist - and no one cares a fig.
I’m just trying to shed light on Newt being an enormous DC political guy who is all about the revolving door between lobbying and elected office.
Anyone who does not want to hide from the truth will not take what I say without checking it out themselves.
Just do simple web searches about Newt and lobbying.
It’s not all left-wing rags that are reporting these things, there is a ton of stuff out there.
I am not anti-business I am pro-small-business.
Small business does not get a “tax-holiday”. This cr@p makes me so mad, it’s infuriating.
Big business waddles up to the Federal Reserve trough for low interest loans any time they please. They don’t care about regulation - they love it since it hinders small competitors.
I just read today - US IDIOTS DO NOT KNOW THIS - BUT BIG FINANCE IS TELLING CONGRESS AS WE SPEAK THAT THEY DO NOT WANT DODD-FRANK REPEALED.
DO YOU GUYS HEAR THAT ?
You think the next President and Congress are going to repeal all of Obama’s legislation ?
Bachmann, Santorum - maybe.
Any other candidate - KEEP DREAMIN’.
I hope we all like Obamacare, cuz it ain’t going away unless we STOP ELECTING REVOLVING DOOR ESTABLISHMENT LOBBYIST-TYPES like Romney and Newt.
Paul might get rid of some of Obama’s legislation, but of course, he’ll arrange things so our military has it’s pants down, so he’s a no-go pothead’s candidate.
We have choices. If Bachmann or Santorum finishes well in IA, they will be serious candidates. New candidates, including Sarah, may still enter, if the race is wide open.
I’m sick of hearing that “he/she is too conservative and hence, unelectable” bs. Obama was supposed to be unelectable. In the end, any GOP nominee has very high chance of winning.
Newt is not really different from romney. Both have been supporting anti-conservative policies. We don’t know what they really believe.
Ben Franklin was a master at this sort of thing.
When the Pennsylvania Assembly was debating raising the limits on the amount of paper currency in the colony, Franklin wrote an anonymous pamphlet that swung the tide in favor, "A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper-Currency". He was then awarded the lucrative commission to print the currency, having also come up with an ingenious way to thwart counterfeiting by using unique leaf prints.
And this STILL doesn’t make him a LOBBYIST for Ethanol. IF you’re a lobbyist, you have to register as a LOBBYIST and the whole world knows it. To advise on strategy and “speak positively to the media” is NOT a lobbyist.
You make an excellent point. Now see what the Michigan Republican legislatures are up to - MOVIE SUBSIDIES - disgusting!!!
I like Palin, but I am not sure at this point if she could win either.
I am also not concerned with labels, RINO vs not RINO, conservative vs anti-conservatives, electable vs unelectable. Labels have different meanings to each person using them. I am only concerned with what a candidate proposes and whether they have the intelligence and experience to effect the kind of change we need. Should we not elect someone who can turn this country around, America as we know and love it will be gone.
Calling all Palin people... remember “death panels”.....
Gingrichs consulting business and think tank had more than 300 members and clients, generating gross revenue of nearly $55 million between 2001 and 2010, according to a statement by former Gingrich aide Desmond, who remains chairman and chief executive of the operation. (Karen Tumulty and Dan Eggen, Newt Gingrich Inc.: How the GOP hopeful went from political flameout to fortune, The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com, 11/26/2011)
Gingrich also broke from the right when he praised his client Gundersen Lutheran Health Systems end-of-life best practice as one that empowers patients and families. At the height of the health care debate in which end-of-life care became a key dividing issue between Republicans and Democrats, Gingrich stood out alone in the Republican field.
Gingrichs campaign has said the firm brings in revenue of $5 million a year, a figure Meyers would not confirm. (Huma Khan, Newt Gingrich Had Lucrative Health Industry Ties, ABC News,abcnews.go.com, 11/18/2011)
Despite Gingrichs frequent protestations that hes never technically lobbied, there appears to be a great deal of anecdotal evidence that the former House Speaker has directly sought to influence legislation since leaving office.
Multiple sources have told me and the Washington Post stories of Newt privately pushing members to vote Aye the position of the drug clients he had. So, again, heres the story, based on multiple sources, and never denied by Gingrich, in bullet points:
* Drug companies were paying Gingrich to help them pass the drug bill
* Gingrich was privately leaning on lawmakers to pass the bill
That sounds a lot like lobbying for the drug companies. It doesnt mean he sold his opinion. It just means hes not telling the truth when he says he never lobbied. (Timothy P. Carney, Gingrichs lobbying denial is not a denial, The Washington Examiner, campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com, 11/21/2011)
Thanks for that link ~!
I just started reading FED UP!..... and cant wait to finish it.
That content came off of Bachmann’s site.
But the stories should be easy to VERIFY. TRUST BUT VERIFY.
There’s more there on her site if anyone wants to check it out and then check her facts.
And hey, take your search engine of choice, plug in “gingrich” and “lobby” or “ethanol” or “fannie” or whatever and see what you find.
If his record will stand up to your scrutiny, then why not check it out, you can only confirm that he’s the best candidate.
But if you find dozens of troubling articles that simply tell the facts of who, what where and when and you disagree with Newt’s positions... then why in the world would you vote for him ?????
I’d look for the candidate that I disagreed with the least and agreed with the most. Based on their actual record.
It’s easy with the innermenet.
The founding fathers would be proud...
So some business firm hired Gingrich to do some consulting for them, and then they paid him for it. Well, for the crime of accepting payment for services rendered, throw Newt into the maximum security prison!
So you’d like to see a lobbyist as President ?
>> a knowlegeable individual with respect to government regulation and the players in Congress <<
But of course, he certainly wasn’t a “lobbyist” for these folks. Just a hardworking historian, doncha know!
No, no, no. You got it wrong. He's just a modest, soft-spoken historian.
You see, his only job for the ethanol people was to explain to them the history of alternative energy sources. No "consulting" -- and definitely no lobbying!
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.