Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newt Gingrich threatens TV stations over [Romney PAC] ad
Politico ^ | February 17, 2012 | KENNETH P. VOGEL

Posted on 02/17/2012 10:12:40 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

Newt Gingrich’s campaign is threatening to sue TV stations in upcoming primary states that are airing or plan to broadcast an ad from a pro-Mitt Romney super PAC accusing the former House Speaker of supporting the “one-child” Chinese policy that has been criticized as inhumane.

The ad in question, which is the work of the Restore Our Future super PAC and is already airing in the former House Speaker’s home state of Georgia, asserts 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.”

A letter from a Gingrich campaign lawyer sent to every TV station in the states with upcoming contests in the GOP presidential primary calls the ad “fundamentally NOT TRUE, or as PolitiFACT.org put it – a “Pants on Fire” lie.

If the stations air the ad “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,” the letter asserts, demanding stations “immediately REFUSE, ad if started, CEASE airing any such advertisements and refrain from broadcasting their content until such time as the libelous statements have been removed.”

The ad refers to a 1989 bill for which Gingrich was among the co-sponsors (in all, 144 members attached their name to the bill). While the bill, House Resolution 1078, directed money to the U.N. Population Fund, which President Ronald Reagan opposed because it supported Chinese family planning efforts deemed inhumane, a provision in the measure explicitly prohibited funding for “the performance of involuntary sterilization or abortion or to coerce any person to accept family planning.”

The ad is a slight variation of one that Restore Our Future has been running heavily in multiple states since December, and the Gingrich campaign did not respond when asked why they were launching the official challenge now.

A well-connected Washington, D.C., campaign finance lawyer suggested the timing may be related to the fact that McKenna Long & Aldridge, the law firm of Gingrich’s top outside campaign counsel Stefan Passantino, represents TV stations in Georgia.

In fact, the Gingrich campaign paid another law firm, the Atlanta-based Hall Booth Smith & Slover, to send the letter to TV stations “to ensure there are no conflicts,” said Gingrich campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond.

The Gingrich campaign said some of the stations that received the letter intended to report on it, but did not answer when asked if any planned to remove the ad.

This is not the first time that the Gingrich’s campaign has written TV stations to complain about a Restore Our Future ad. Last month, the campaign demanded more than 50 TV stations remove an ad from the super PAC that asserted Gingrich had been “fined” $300,000 by the House Ethics Committee in the 1990s for violations.

Restore Our Future pushed back in its own letter to the stations and none appear to have removed the ad. The super PAC did not respond to a request for comment on Gingrich’s latest demand.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conservative; gingrich; gingrich2012; gopprimary; newt; newtgingrich; prolife; romney2012; smallgovernment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-67 last
To: b9; onyx; SatinDoll; TitansAFC; caww; true believer forever; KansasGirl; katiedidit1; All
Mitt Romney Super PAC has been machine of destruction for his opponents

Whenever Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been down and in need of an enforcer, one has been there to prop him up.

Restore Our Future, the independent “Super PAC” that supports Romney’s campaign, has been a machine of destruction in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, swamping Republican rival Newt Gingrich with attack ads each time he has seemed to threaten Romney’s frontrunner status.

the group’s financial reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) reveal that private equity executives, hedge fund managers and other financial heavyweights are key contributors to the fundraising juggernaut that Restore Our Future has become.

The filings reveal that Restore Our Future had $23.6-million in the bank as of Dec. 31 — more than the Romney campaign itself. The PAC has spent $17.4-million in support of Romney, including nearly $11-million in Florida. Among the most generous contributors to Romney’s cause have been people who share Romney’s investment background.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/01/analysis-mitt-romney-super-pac-has-been-machine-of-destructi

51 posted on 02/17/2012 12:54:18 PM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow

Here in Minnesota, Romney attack ads on Santorum have been running. Each time one pops up I dislike him even more. They aren’t working.

Newt 2012


52 posted on 02/17/2012 12:58:58 PM PST by Java4Jay (The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

“Romney is one of the biggest liars I have ever seen. He has no shame.”

CPAC speech; “I was a severely conservative governor”

Romney is a fake!


53 posted on 02/17/2012 1:04:35 PM PST by Java4Jay (The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: All

A study by the Wesleyan Media Project shows Romney and his allies, particularly the Restore Our Future super PAC, had aired 12,768 ads in Florida compared with 210 for Gingrich and his allies.

Romney and Restore Our Future spent a combined $6.28 million on Florida ads in the final week leading to the primary, according to figures provided to the Associated Press. The total spent in Florida - $15.3 million for Romney and Restore Our Future.99% of Romney ads were negative attacks on Gingrich. 100% of the super PACs ads were negative against Gingrich.

Mitt is STILL trying to buy the nomination, by smearing Gingrich, whom he, his Wall Street supporters and the putrid GOP elite fear most.


54 posted on 02/17/2012 1:04:56 PM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

Fantastic graphic!!!

It sorta looks like something’s passing through a squadron of snakes... and that maybe we need a new snake!

Now there’s a rallying cry.


55 posted on 02/17/2012 1:05:55 PM PST by headsonpikes (Mass murder and cannibalism are the twin sacraments of socialism - "Who-whom?"-Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

IMO Newt’s mistake here is threatening to sue only the stations. He should sue (not threaten) the principals running that PAC.


56 posted on 02/17/2012 1:42:33 PM PST by Sal (Soros owns ALL the 'Rats and the GO PEE (self appointed Establishment Elite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toespi

Was it a lie? If we are giving money to a group who practices one child policy, whether we stipulate where the funds go or not, that amount of money will go to the one child policy. But we can wash our hands because of accounting.

Newt most definitely can defend himself without going negative and even without a debate. And who said he isnt allowed to defend himself in the first place?

As for the rot gut of this campaign, it is no worse than any other. We lose perspective easily, but every election cannot be the most important ever and every dirty trick cannot be the worst ever. There have been worse, just look at LBJ, or look at McCain and Huckabee teaming up. I hope he sues too, because he wont win and he will demonstrate the absurdity of suing someone in a political campaign.


57 posted on 02/17/2012 2:14:48 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

If you have to put in a stipulation that the money you are giving a group wont be used to aid 1 child policy, then you should not be giving that organization any money. This is no different than giving PP money and saying “dont use any of this on abortions.” While that money may not directly go to abortions, it frees up that same amount of pre-assigned money to now go to abortions, so the end result is you funded them. It says something about the gullibility of anyone who was pushing this legislation.

It very well could be put around Newt, because of the good intentions bad result aspect.


58 posted on 02/17/2012 2:16:55 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: A. Morgan
Romney and his millionaire SUPER PAC friends are really something!

Obama and his millionaire and billionaire SUPER PAC friends will make Willard and his sleazy buddies look like saints.
59 posted on 02/17/2012 2:31:11 PM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam

You are using circular logic that just doesn’t cut it.

It would be the same if I gave a bum $10 and stipulated that he buy food and not booze with it.

So it’s best to let the bum starve in streets than to make the attempt to help because he may use it to get drunk?

If that’s true, then no drunk or drug addict would ever receive the help they need.

“It very well could be put around Newt, because of the good intentions bad result aspect.”

Nope. Intent is everything and underlying reason to give in the first place.

Otherwise, what would be the reason to try to help anyone at all.


60 posted on 02/17/2012 3:45:34 PM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam

You are using circular logic that just doesn’t cut it.

It would be the same if I gave a bum $10 and stipulated that he buy food and not booze with it.

So it’s best to let the bum starve in streets than to make the attempt to help because he may use it to get drunk?

If that’s true, then no drunk or drug addict would ever receive the help they need.

“It very well could be put around Newt, because of the good intentions bad result aspect.”

Nope. Intent is everything and the underlying reason to give in the first place.

Otherwise, what would be the reason to try to help anyone at all.


61 posted on 02/17/2012 3:45:44 PM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

Darn... slow internet...


62 posted on 02/17/2012 3:46:30 PM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

No, it wouldnt be like that at all. First, we are not the only resource that the UN has, so we dont need to give them money to begin with. Second, if multiple groups are giving money, and one says dont use mine for “x,” then the group can just use someone else’s for “x” while their total amount of money has gone up. That lets them slide pre-designated money to China, and put ours in another slot., which allows them to give the same amount to China. It is no different from the government giving to PP with a no abortion clause. Maybe PP doesnt use the govt money for abortions, but now they have more total revenues and can slide other money in.

You created a strawman with completely different circumstances.

And intent is definitely not everything, in fact it is pretty meaningless. Results are what matter. Helping people doesnt rely on intent.


63 posted on 02/17/2012 4:12:58 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
Pro-Romney PAC Uses ‘Willie Horton’ Ad Maker for Attacks
64 posted on 02/18/2012 4:41:39 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; Finny

Michigan and Arizona are before the March 1 debate. One can spend their time winning both states and still attend the debate.

The debate was to be on national TV five days before Super Tuesday. A candidate's best use of their time to do well in the eleven Super Tuesday states, would be to appear on national TV simultaneously in all eleven states, demonstrating why they are the best candidate.

That is unless they are afraid to debate.

65 posted on 02/18/2012 9:05:19 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
A candidate's best use of their time to do well in the eleven Super Tuesday states, would be to appear on national TV simultaneously in all eleven states, demonstrating why they are the best candidate. That is unless they are afraid to debate.

And unless they hold the "values" of CHUMPS.

Romney is one thing -- we know what a low-lying slug he is. But Santorum has no excuse. Santorum's "values" stink, and they're getting smellier by the day.

66 posted on 02/18/2012 9:24:22 AM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite
Santorum says so many great things on his website, which is well worth the read. He also gives himself away for the nanny stater that he is and it just FRIES me that his supporters are either too stubborn, proud, or lazy to acknowledge his flaws. For example, he talks about defunding Planned Parenthood -- HOORAY!

Then in the next sentence, talks about taking half of the money that used to fund Planned Parenthood and putting it toward adoption causes. *sigh*

How about returning all of that money to the peoples' own pockets? The Federal government doesn't need to use OUR money to promote adoption.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich's policy stands on virtually every issue are much the same as or better (depending) than Santorum's. Gingrich's priorities are solid and right, where Santorum's priorities are placed on morally self-gratifying non-issues like illegal pornography and contraception. Santorum speaks mostly in safe generalities while Gingrich takes risks by being detailed in his vision and how he plans to implement it. Pelosi-on-the-couch and "he supported mandates!" are strawmen arguments that anyone who is HONEST with themselves in their reviewing of Newt's stands and proposals must admit. But that quality -- that "value" -- of honesty is crucial.

Side by side, it looks to me that the ONLY reason Santorum supporters have for supporting Santorum over Newt is because Newt's been twice-divorced and Santorum never has. Those supporters often claim that Santorum's "values" are so much more "conservative." Meanwhile, Santorum's actions reveal a man of mean values and a proud heart, while Gingrich's actions reveal a man of patriotism, humility, passion, and vision.

Godspeed Newt Gingrich.

67 posted on 02/18/2012 9:52:16 AM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-67 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson