Skip to comments.Newt 2012 Letter to TV Stations Regarding False Ads From Romney's Super PAC
Posted on 02/18/2012 1:37:04 AM PST by Marguerite
February 16, 2012
General Manager/Station Manager/Vice President
Re: False and Misleading Advertisements Produced by the Restore Our Future Super PAC
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter issues on behalf of Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (the House), Republican candidate for President of the United States, and his principal campaign committee, Newt 2012, Inc.
It has recently come to our attention that your station has either been asked to run, or may soon be asked to run, various advertising spots produced by the Mitt Romney aligned Super PAC, Restore Our Future, Inc. (ROF). Included among the Romney advertisements submitted to your station for broadcast are likely to be various spots that specifically mention Speaker Gingrich and assert that he partnered with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in support of legislation providing financial support for Chinas one-child policy.
The content of these advertisements state and/or suggest that Speaker 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. This statement is fundamentally NOT TRUE, or as PolitiFact.org put it a Pants on Fire lie. In fact, as clearly shown by the language of the actual legislation at issue and the false ratings given to these ROF ads by various media and fact-check organizations, ANY statement, suggestion, or innuendo that Speaker Gingrich supported Chinas one-child policy or worked with Congresswoman Pelosi to provide funds for such a policy is fundamentally false and misleading. If published after your receipt of this letter, 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.
In turn, we do hereby DEMAND that your station immediately REFUSE, and if started, CEASE airing any such advertisements and refrain from broadcasting their content until such time as the libelous statements have been removed.
FALSITY OF CONTENT
Any statement or suggestion that Speaker Gingrich worked with Speaker Pelosi to provide funding for a U.N. program supporting Chinas one-child policy is unequivocally false. A basic review of the piece of legislation referenced in ROFs advertisements undeniably establishes the invalidity of such an accusation.
The statement of concern in ROFs advertisements relates to a piece of legislation known as House Resolution 1078, which was introduced on February 22, 1989 but never passed. That bill, labeled as the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989, primarily set national goals for the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide and encouraged countries around the world to forge agreements addressing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the legislation required the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor various environmental problems associated with greenhouse gases and develop plans for a future administrative response to such problems.
As part of these efforts, the bill also called for the federal government to provide financial support to certain developing countries that endeavored to pursue economic growth in an environmentally-sensitive fashion. In conjunction with this financial aid effort, the language of H.R. 1078 specifically called for monetary support of the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF), an international development agency focused on helping developing countries and their citizens tackle various problems associated with population growth, migration, aging, climate change, urbanization, gender inequality, poverty, and disease.
The language in the ROF advertisements at issue specifically contends that H.R. 1078 would have provided $60 million a year to UNPF, which may or may not have been involved in supporting family planning activities in China. According to ROF, this would have included financial support for the nations one-child policy, the Chinese governments effort to limit internal population growth to one child per couple through methods such as forced sterilization and abortion. As set forth below, however, this ROF contention regarding H.R. 1078 is fundamentally and absolutely FALSE.
The claim is false because the explicit language of H.R. 1078, Section 1102, Part C specifically prohibits any funding provided under the bill to be used for the performance of involuntary sterilization or abortion or to coerce any person to accept family planning. (See Attachment #1, p. 2). Based upon this provision in the legislation, no funding (let alone 60 million dollars) could have been provided to UNPF if it in any way participated in activities associated with, supporting or promoting Chinas one-child policy. And no matter what ROF claims to the contrary, H.R. 1078 clearly prohibits the federal government from providing a single dollar of assistance to any public health or aid organization supporting sterilization, abortion, or coerced family planning in China or any other country.
Beyond these facts, however, it is also important to note that the veracity of ROFs one-child policy claims has been openly called into question by a variety of impartial observers since the Super PAC first began producing television spots attacking Gingrichs co-sponsorship of H.R. 1078. When ROF ran similar spots in Florida leading up to the states January 31st presidential preference primary, PolitiFact Florida openly criticized the claim and characterized it as Pants on Fire, its lowest Truth-O-Meter rating and a brand of abject falsity. (See Attachment #2). In light of ROFs recent decision to run ads making the same statements in Georgia, PolitiFact Georgia has also reached the same conclusion rating ROFs one-child policy claim a Pants on Fire lie. (See Attachment #3). Other members of the news media have also picked up on PolitiFacts analysis and/or independently reported on the falsity of ROFs one-child policy claims, including The New Yorker, The Atlantic, ABC News, FactCheck.org, and WZVN-TV in Florida. (See Attachment #4, pg. 2 & Attachments #5-7).
In sum, there is absolutely no support for the one-child policy claims made by ROF in its latest Georgia advertisements. Not only does the language of the legislation itself stand in direct contradiction to ROFs statements about Speaker Gingrich, but various neutral parties have independently assessed the one-child policy claims and judged them to be fundamentally untrue. As such, this station should consider statements attempting to link Speaker Gingrich to support for Chinas one-child policy in any ROF advertising as patently false, misleading, and defamatory. And, given the fact that the language of H.R. 1078 is abundantly clear and part of the general public record, we are left with no other conclusion but to assume that such communications by ROF are made with either knowledge or reckless disregard of their inherent falsity.
Through the above repudiation of the falsities contained within ROFs present Georgia television spots regarding Speaker Gingrich and H.R. 1078, your station has been given notice and absolute knowledge of the defamatory nature of such advertisements. As a result, any further attempt to broadcast or communicate such advertisements or any of their inaccurate content to the general public will expose your station to potential liability for both libel and false light invasion of privacy. In turn, and as previously stated above, we do hereby request that your station immediately cease airing any such false advertisements and completely refrain from broadcasting their content until such time as the aforementioned defamatory statements have been removed.
Please govern your actions accordingly. We look forward to receiving your prompt reply to this correspondence and request that any questions regarding its contents be directed to my attention.
HALL, BOOTH, SMITH & SLOVER, P.C.
PATRICK N. MILLSAPS Deputy General Counsel, Newt 2012
Gingrich says that by running the ad, it would be a "knowing publication of a false statement," which fits the definition of malice under libel statutes in many states.
I hope they don’t let up. These untruthful political action groups should be held responsible. I don’t blame Newt, I would not want someone publicly making false claims of my character.
"He 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," says the voice in the ad paid for by Restore Our Future. The super PAC is run by supporters of Mitt Romney.
Restore Our Future refers to House Resolution 1078, which was introduced on Feb. 22, 1989, before Gingrich became speaker and when Democrats had control of the House of Representatives.
The legislation was called the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989. It set national goals to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and encouraged international agreements to address global warming, PolitiFact Florida reported. It required the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor global warming and create plans for future action. It supported stricter fuel standards for cars and alternative energy. It also sent money to developing countries to encourage practices that reduce carbon emissions.
The bill had several hearings but received unfavorable reviews from the administration of George H.W. Bush and never became law.
The Restore Our Future website says the $60 million went to the United Nations Population Fund and that President Ronald Reagan withheld funds from the program after he determined the program, which supports family planning and contraception, was supporting Chinese actions.
The bill did propose money for the United Nations Population Fund. But Section 1102, Part C, of the bill prohibits using any of the funds for "the performance of involuntary sterilization or abortion or to coerce any person to accept family planning." That is the exact opposite of the language in Restore Our Futures ad about Gingrich.
As we mentioned, PolitiFact Florida rated this claim Pants On Fire."
The news circulation of Romney’s lying ads against Newt, coordinate nicely with Santorum’s anti-Romney “mudslinging” ad - Rombo.
Those two creeps Mitt&Rick are disputing among themselves the order in P/VP.
Section 1102, Part C, of the bill prohibits using any of the funds for "the performance of involuntary sterilization or abortion or to coerce any person to accept family planning." That is the exact opposite of the language in Restore Our Futures ad about Gingrich."
Many republicans were in such a panic to stop Romney, now created another flawed weak candidate to rise in that process. The candidate has not even went through any descent amount of vetting. No way a candidate under those circumstances could hold up in the general. (perfect October surprise scenario as well) Romney truly is a liar. Thank you posting. I learn alot at this forum.
I do hope that as well. Mitt Sleaze Romney crossed the line of decency. I do hope he'll pay from his own pocket as much money in fines, as his super PACs spent to smear Speaker Gingrich.
Gingrich Calls Romney A “Liar”
“Somebody who will lie to you to get to be president will lie to you when if he become president.” — Newt Gingrich
That is one of those negative ads in which the Speaker confronted Romney with at one of the debates. I recall Romney responding to say that he would check into it. Newt is pro-life, those accusations cut deep. Thank you for your great posts.
“I recall Romney responding to say that he would check into it. Newt is pro-life, those accusations cut deep.”
Here it is: Romney lying live at GOP debate in New Hampshire
Do you recall this?
Romney Busted For Claiming He Didn’t Know About his campaign Ad Where Gingrich Calls Spanish “Language of Ghetto”
When confronted with an ad saying that Gingrich called Spanish, “the language of the ghetto”, Romney said he doubted it was his ad. He gets busted by Wolf Blitzer.
At the end of the ad, it’s Romney’s voice, saying in halting Spanish “I am Mitt Romney and I approve this message”.
He’s such a despicable, dishonorable man; lying live on TV, while eight million people were watching him.
Yes! I’ll never forget that. He turned to Newt and said, said, “it’s true?”
Mitt knew his mendacious ad was a lie. He lied to Newt, he lied to Blitzer, he lied to the Republican voters in Florida and he lied to the eight million audience.
You’re an idiot. Gingrich rocks but people like you aren’t doing anything but hurting his campaign. Why are you attacking Santorum? He has nothing at all to do with this and is running an honest and upstanding campaign.
Marguerite, shows me that the Romney camp, supporters, gop establishment would sell their souls to win the White House. Outrageous LIES about the Speaker and they question Newt’s christianity?
GO NEWT! 2012! We will never give up the fight!
Are you only aware that Santorum campaign was running negative ads against Gingrich in ... Missouri, where Newt wasn’t even on the ballot?
Are you aware that Santorum is aping Romney in that?
Here is Newt’s reply to Santorum uncalled for attacks:
“Atlanta, GA — Newt 2012 National Security Advisor Stephen Yates shared the following statement in response to Senator Rick Santorum’s criticism of Newt Gingrich’s American space policy:
“I am deeply concerned that Senator Santorum so easily relinquishes space development to the Chinese and Russians.
“American success in space is not only about being the first to develop a station on the moon. It is just as much about the explosion of math, science, engineering and national security technology that will launch America into a new age of innovation and prosperity.
“We owe it to ourselves to set grandiose goals and then achieve them. It is the American way.”
Are you aware that Santorum enthusiastically endorsed the SAME Romney in 2008, calling him “the true conservative we need”?
Whether you agree with me or not, there is no shadow of a doubt that Santorum was and remains an opportunistic politician, who turns the side of his sweater as the wind blows ...
I could line up just as many attack points on Gingrich. Instead, I try to promote Santorum and unload with both barrels on the idiots who think they are helping Gingrich by attacking Santorum.
“Santorum? He has nothing at all to do with this and is running an honest and upstanding campaign
Here is a quote from Santorum’s book that should scare anyone who wants the government out of their lives.
“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I dont think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldnt get involved in the bedroom, we shouldnt get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals cant go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where weve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
He truly believes that the government belongs in our bedrooms because “individuals can’t go it alone.”
Santorum wants to use the government to impose his own morals on everyone else and he seems to have a special fascination imposing his own brand of “clean” sex. That’s pretty scary, when you analyze what he says and what is hidden between his words.
I never heard a genuine conservative promoting the intrusion of government in people’s private lives.
When Santorum STOPS attacking Newt, I’ll think about it. Until then, like all other candidates, his deeds are fair game.
I learned a lot about his career, his writings and declarations in the last days, and I like him less because of all I found. He was flying under the radar until last week, but now he’s like a deer caught into the car lights.
Just get used to it: ALL the candidates must be thoroughfully vetted and Santorum is no exception.
The Romney Slime Machine at work.
This is an amazing, public, “big lie” in the tradition of Goebbels.
Romney has done this kind of thing throughout the campaign. I’ve no doubt he was behind the sexual innuendo campaign waged against Herman Cain. I’ve no doubt he was behind the “racist rock” campaign against Rick Perry. I’ve no doubt he is behind the grossly out-of-context “dangers of contraception” quote dug up by Time Magazine against Rick Santorum.
The Romney Slime Machine says that Romney is a cheap shot liar, his politcal flip-flops peg him a liar, and the debates have proven him a liar. Remember the book quote shown by both Perry and Santorum, and remember Romney denying the quote even though it’s there in black and white?
That’s Romney. He is incapable of truth.
It is not only Romney with his shameless lies and distortions, who plays on the fact that too many American still get the “News” from the radio and TV and are too lazy to check out the veracity of his libelous screeds.
It is also the fault of the TV and radio stations, which pretend that it is not their obligation to verify the veracity of the ads, as long as they harvest gazillions for airing them. Bloody hypocrites.
If tomorrow I buy time on all national TV stations with an add telling the truth, that Obama voted twice for partial abortions and voted against saving the life of a viable baby, born from a late abortion attempt, do you really think they will air it?
I really wish that Gingrich’s attorneys will pursue in a court of justice all the media who are running that despicable, defamatory ad for libel, and made them spit millions in defense fees and procedure. Serve them right.
To attack a man, whose pro-life record is irreproachable, by Romney of all people, who switched his “convictions” as a weathercock spinning with the wind, is simply revolting.
As for Romney, I wouldn’t give him the time of the day, were I to meet him. He is a repulsive snake. Everything in his attitude, his false smile, his machine-gun-like speech, his carnivorous smirk, his robot-like body language reveal a soulless, heartless parvenu. Even his wealth is repulsive, not because he is rich, but because he became rich by throwing into misery thousands and thousands of American workers, who asked for no more than having a decent pay to take care of their families. I saw what
Mr. Mitt Bain did in Florida, I saw the wasteland he left behind, carrying away hundreds of millions and leaving on place 1,700 broken families.
I wouldn’t trust such a man, and I don’t trust him to guard my purse, when I go to the ladies room to powder my nose...
Great collection of links.
Thanks for posting it.
I stay out of the “Gingrich” threads, but it’s hard when they turn into baseless personal attacks on Rick Santorum.
Anyway, half the time the “pro-Newt” threads are damaging enough. How much more could you say in a thread where the POSITIVE message is that Gingrich worked with Pelosi to restore Reagan-cut funding to the UN Planning Fund? And the reason this is “good” is that the legislation says UNPF can’t use the money for the one-child policy. Cool. Like anything else the UNPF was doing was just great.
Yes, but some think he should be an exception..they are so blind because even Santorums team says he has to address all these issues of his record and what he says....so people who somehow imagine he's "excused" aren't living in the real world but one of their imagination....and there sure seems to be many of them.
Even if Santorum stopped attacking Newt...won't make a difference to me. I'm conserative but he is so far off the edge of right wing it's scary....as someone said Santorum is more religious than the POPE!
His self-rightous mindset has often made Pennsylvanians cringe...which he's trying hard to hide from the public now he's running. But it creeps out along the way.
There are some things I like about Santorum...but he is not the best we have....Newt is and clearly so! And Santorum just willl not stand the test when up against obama...
Santorum says he's the opposite of Obama...well he's going to have to articulate his points and his counter-attacks to obama and the guy just isn't that quick witted to pull it off. I see him stumbling just as we see him do now.
I will not be happy if Santorum even gets close to the Presidency....frankly I would have prefered Perry..and I wasn't excited about him either
No she didn't. She turned the torch over to the 1994 republican congress. Nancy Reagan: "Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie. And in turn, Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive."
And you know who was among those "republican members of Congress? -- Rick Santorum. So Rick Santorum has as much claim to the "Torch" as Newt Gingrich.
Newt consistently has gone up against Washington and those who would have things just stay the same o’ good boys club. I laugh when people say he was an insider...LOL...of course he was and why he was able to pull off all the accomplishments for conservatism that he did!
Too many people are seeking a “perfect” candidate....I will take any and all of Newt's mis-steps over even half of others who have served attempting to get the job done. Newt DID the DEEDS while others excused why they couldn't or blamed others.
Also...there were many things accomplished that Newt never took credit for which he was responsible for making them happen....he gave the glory he could have otherwise had to others...but he knew and those of us who have looked into these happenings and events know where if it weren't for Newt those things would not have happened for the good of this country.
I see a lot of pictures with Newt and Clinton as well.
Santorum wasn’t in office when Reagan was President — he was first elected in 1991, halfway through Bush’s presidency. So why would there be pictures of him with Reagan? It’s like saying you don’t see pictures of Sarah Palin with Reagan.
The fact is that Santorum was a republican member the house when Nancy Reagan said that the Reagan passed the torch to the republican members of the house. Reports are that even Nancy Reagan herself has pointed this out.
I wouldn’t use that quote if I were a Newt supporter, because it just reminds people of how Newt tends to overplay HIS role in things, and seek individual glory.
And what would Michael Reagan know? He wasn’t a congressman during that time, he’s a talk show host who endorsed Gingrich — why would he mention Santorum? I mean, I guess it’s nice that Michael endorsed Newt, but I think it’s more important that Perry endorsed Newt.
And Michael Reagan has no more authority to claim who Ronald Reagan would have endorsed than you or I. We don’t inherent greatness.
“His self-rightous mindset has often made Pennsylvanians cringe...which he’s trying hard to hide from the public now he’s running. But it creeps out along the way.”
And now it makes other people than Pennsylvanians cringe.
“Reports are that even Nancy Reagan herself has pointed this out.”
Nancy Reagan 1995: ‘Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt’
1995 Goldwater Institute Dinner honoring President Ronald Reagan: “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive” - Nancy Reagan
“I see a lot of pictures with Newt and Clinton as well.”
Of course, and why not?
Newt led the charge in the legislative elections - under president Clinton administration - in 1994, when the Republicans won, for the FIRST time in 40 years, both the House AND the Senate majority.
As Speaker of the House, Newt had to work with the president in place, so no wonder you can see those photos.
What’s amazing is that you’re carping about it.
Source or link for these reports, please?
“And what would Michael Reagan know?”
Michael Reagan was 35-year-old when his father became president in 1980. So he well knows about EVERYTHING which happened during Reagan’s two term presidency.
I’ve just posted it on THIS thread.
Thank you for the confirmation of what I posted way back up the thread. Nancy didn’t pass the torch just to Newt, she passed it to ALL the Republican members of Congress. Santorum was one of those members, so Ronnie passed the torch to Rick Santorum.
I strongly doubt that Ronald Reagan was ever aware of Santorum’s existence.
I hope you are fully aware of Santorum’s vicious attacks against Newt, while Newt has never attacked him.
Jan 31, 2012
“The Santorum campaign is out with a new radio ad attacking Newt Gingrich, ABC News has learned.
The negative ad says Gingrich is not a true conservative and that is why he lost Tuesday evening to Mitt Romney in the Florida primary.
The Florida results are in, and despite spending millions, Newt Gingrich went from a big lead to a big defeat. Why? Because voters discovered Gingrich wasnt a true conservative, the voice over reads.”
February 3, 2012
“Pro-Santorum Super PAC Ad Takes First Negative Shot at Gingrich
The Red, White and Blue Funds latest television commercial, called The Only One, will air in the Minneapolis market comparing Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich to President Obama. The states caucuses are Feb. 7.
The 30-second spot shows images of Obama, Romney and Gingrich while the announcer says, Theyre not so different.”
February 3, 2012
“Santorum’s ad, which is running on satellite radio, according to the Hill newspaper, states that, “Reckless spending has led to $15 trillion of national debt. And what does Newt Gingrich suggest? Spending half a trillion dollars on a moon colony.” The ad goes on to provide a quote of Gingrich proposing the lunar base. Then it describes the idea as “fiscal insanity.””
It will be a chilly day in hell, when Gingrich chooses Santorum as VP
My comment was asking the poster to whom the question was addressed for a source or link to his statement that “reports are” that Nancy Reagan herself had pointed out something that validates his (the poster’s) inference that Ms. Reagan’s comment about Newt meant something other than what she said. Your #38 is not responsive to my question. Thanks for trying, though.
You replied to me with a blog post that purports to quote Andrea Mitchell (okay...) purporting to cite anonymous "sources close to Nancy Reagan (seriously?) that she was referring generally to Congress.
Do you have a source or link to a legitimate or recognized news source that says specifically what you contend, which is that Nancy Reagan herself has pointed out that she was NOT referring specifically to Newt in the video clip where she says Ronnie has passed the torch to Newt and the Republican members of Congress? Or, maybe even a source/link that verifies that Nancy Reagan has ever clarified or expanded upon in any way the comments she made in 1995 at the Goldwater Institute?
I suspect that you’re right. But, now that I’ve seen Wayne’s reply to you in his #45, the only conclusion is that he’s being deliberately obtuse, as is his wont. There’s probably no point in discussing it with him any further.
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.