Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich threatens TV stations over [Romney PAC] ad
Posted on 02/17/2012 10:12:40 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Newt Gingrichs 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 Speakers 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 Chinas 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 Gingrichs 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 Gingrichs 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 Gingrichs latest demand.
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.
Darn... slow internet...
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.
Carry_Okie: Newt will win Georgia. Santorum knows it. He'd rather spend his time on winning in Michigan or Arizona.
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.
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.
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.