Look at that guy—that's the way you do it. Money for nothing and your chicks for free.
(Gingrich photo: Chris Keane/Reuters)
As promised, Newt Gingrich's consulting group last night released a
second, earlier Freddie Mac contract. It is
as boring and nonspecific as the first, although I suppose if you wanted to know whether Freddie Mac would cover highway tolls incurred while traveling to their offices, good news! We've finally cleared that one up (answer: no, they won't).
Here's the non-boilerplate part of the contract. The only thing of interest is the section (boldfaced in the original document, so you know they really wanted to make that clear) about how nope, none of this is lobbying. It's just "meeting with stakeholders" and the like:
The Services to be provided by the Contractor are as follows:
- Serve as advisor to Freddie Mac in the areas of strategic planning and public policy for Freddie Mac priority issues;
- Engage in discussions with the Mitchell Delk and other senior officers of Freddie Mac relative to strategize on approaches to Freddie Mac business opportunities and challenges;
- Meet with major stakeholders of Freddie Mac to discuss business and public policy issues when such meetings can contribute to the achievement of Freddie Mac business goals;
- Contribute to Freddie Mac corporate planning and business goals subject to the direction and the request of the Freddie Mac Project Manager.
Nothing herein is or shall be construed as an agreement to provide lobbying services of any kind or engage in lobbying activities. Newt Gingrich and Group do not provide lobbying services of any kind and do not engage in lobbying activities. Neither The Gingrich Group nor Newt Gingrich will provide lobbying services of any kind nor participate in lobbying activities on Freddie Mac's behalf.
So there ya go.
It still doesn't resolve Newt's central problem, which is that he was consorting with the (Republican) enemy, and getting paid handsomely to do it. Then again, it's not like there was any big question over whether former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was a giant hypocrite, so it's unclear just how much that hurts him.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has his own Fannie/Freddie problems:
[Romney] agreed to be a distinguished panelist at a housing conference sponsored by the Fannie Mae Foundation in 2004. [...]
According to a brochure released by the Fannie Mae Foundation recapping the event, Romney, then the governor of Massachusetts, spoke alongside former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and offered "a gubernatorial perspective" on homeownership.
Romney, the brochure summarized, outlined his economic development goals in Massachusetts and talked about the need to expand access to affordable housing.
Romney was not paid for the appearance.
An appearance! A brochure! Does it portend something? Not being fully versed in all possible conservative litmus tests, I couldn't begin to tell you. (It's probably not nearly as significant as having multiple advisers who were actual lobbyists for Fannie/Freddie, for example.) But it does make it slightly harder for Romney to criticize Gingrich for his Freddie Mac connections. At least it would, if any member of the Republican Party recognized rank hypocrisy, which they never do—so perhaps the whole thing is a wash.
Republicans have an interesting problem on their hands: They are insistent on a hyper-conservative standard that nobody, short of an absolute crazy person, could possibly meet. That power players in Republican ranks worked with (gasp) organizations that Republicans now dislike isn't surprising: Yes, politicians consult and lobby and generally use their connections to gather in large amounts of cash is not new news. The problem is that so many government and non-government persons/organizations have now been blasted as anti-conservative pariahs that is becoming increasingly impossible for even ultraconservative stalwarts to pass each of the necessary litmus tests.