The Corruption of the Gingriches
So you remember that huge no-interest revolving charge account Tiffany gave Newt Gingrich? Well, even with Tiffany’s explanation and The Newt’s dismissals, the story just doesn’t make any sense. It’s still not clear how it worked and why the Gingriches needed it (other than to buy lots of really, really expensive jewelry, though they surely have enough money of their own not to need credit there), nor why they seem to have had the account in place, owing hundreds of thousands of dollars to Tiffany, over two years, more than the usual 12-month period for Tiffany’s “interest-free borrowing.”
Regardless, there’s actually much more to the story — the smoking gun, if you will — and it makes the Gingriches look even worse. Not just avarious and conspicuously consumptive but unethical and corrupt:
At the same time Tiffany & Co. was extending Callista (Bisek) Gingrich a virtual interest-free loan of tens of thousands of dollars, the diamond and silverware firm was spending big bucks to influence mining policy in Congress and in agencies over which the House Agriculture Committee — where she worked — had jurisdiction, official records show.
Filings by Tiffany’s lobbyist, Cassidy & Co., and other government records show that the firm’s spending on “mining law and mine permitting-related issues” in Congress, as well as the Forest Service, the Interior Department, and Interior’s Bureau of Land Management shot up sharply between during the period when Callista Gingrich was chief clerk at the House Agriculture Committee.
Tiffany’s annual lobbying expenditures rose from about $100,000 to $360,000 between 2005 and 2009, according to records assembled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan government watchdog organization.
In other words, it looks like Tiffany may have been paying off Callista Gingrich, a major player on Capitol Hill (particularly in terms of Tiffany’s lobbying interests), with what was essentially an interest-free loan for her and Newt.
Newt is denying any wrongdoing, which must mean he thinks there’s nothing wrong with a company paying off (or giving gifts to) a Congressional staffer who just happens to be working for the committee the company just happens to be lobbying.
He says it wasn’t preferential treatment. But it’s pretty obvious it was blatant corruption. (And, yes, he really does seem to hold American democracy in such contempt.)
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
9 Responses to “The Corruption of the Gingriches”
I’m not seeing any smoking gun here. Read the two updates in your last link.
In response to the first update, it says:
Really? A congressional staffer shouldn’t be allowed to take advantage of a promotion offered by a company to the public? How is that?
In any case, according to the second update, Tiffany’s wasn’t lobbying her committee anyway.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, I just don’t like seeing flimsy accusations thrown around.
ETA: As for why they would need the loan, a no-interest loan is basically free money when you factor in inflation and increased opportunity for investment. Even if you have the money, there’s still an argument for taking such a loan if it is available.
Even if a promotion is offered to the general population I think people in certain positions need to avoid corruption of the appearance of corruption (just like the appearance of a conflict of interest is best avoided). And really, how many Americans have interest free charge accounts at Tiffany’s? To say an offer is “public” but in reality is only in place for a few people is disingenuious. I think it’s only considered “public” because Tiffany’s extends it to non-employees.
As far as why anyone needs such an account when they have lots of money…. Well really it’s for convenience. I mean when you shop you don’t carry around lots of cash. And you may or may not carry around a credit card with a limit high enough to cover such purchases. If you’re in your favorite store, and you see something you like (and can afford) but you don’t have a credit card with a limit high enough to cover it, then what do you do? You put it on the store’s account. I assume from the store’s persepctive it’s the best way to capture impulse buyers. All the better if you know they have scads of money and will pay up.
But as long as anyone (including the Gingriches) are in a powerful position, they should avoid this behavior. Had she not been on the committee, then there would be no harm.
Well, I don’t have a dog in this fight either.
Or perhaps I do, because some of these “dogs” are in our government and are supposed to be working for the people..
And that a government employee—even a “lowly” staffer (Chief Clerk?) at committees exposed to such intense lobbying, and especially one with a last name “Gingrich” added to her other names—should know better and studiously avoid even the slightest hint of conflict of interest. But that’s just me.
Its entirely plausible, and given the connections of the people involved I think it likely, that this was a payoff. Because it looks like a scandal the voters should treat it as one, and here’s why.
Bribery is almost impossible to prosecute. We all know it happens all the time, hell the Supreme Court has made it a constitutional right. All you have to do is not call it bribery, thats it. Unless you get a politician caught on tape, with audio, and one party is caught saying something like, “Hey Senator, here’s the $10,000 I promised you for voting that way”, you can’t prosecute for bribery. And under the letter of the law I suppose there are facts to support why this is how it has to be. But nonetheless corruption is eating this country from the inside out, its going on all the time and we know it but there isn’t much we can do about it. Except vote.
When we see politicians disappearing into backrooms with their big donors so they can be helped to write legislation, that should set off warning bells. When we see money extended as credit to people of influence, connections should be assumed. When we see smoke, we should vote as if there is fire.
I doubt Tiffany is lobbying on behalf of “Robber Barons” [sic], or is laundering bribe money.
Newt Gingrich isn’t Jeb Bush, expected to run for Pres and likely, win.
StockBoyLA:
“To say an offer is “public” but in reality is only in place for a few people is disingenuious. I think it’s only considered “public” because Tiffany’s extends it to non-employees.”
I don’t follow you. My impression, based on what I’ve read, is that the offer is available for all customers. If I’m wrong on that, someone can correct me. I consider it to be “open to the public” if any customer can ask for it and get it as long as they meet some pre-defined, relevant requirements (such as a credit check, maybe).
As for the “appearance of evil” argument, I’d say (a) so far it doesn’t seem that evil to me, and (b) of course it is wise to avoid the appearance of evil, but the appearance of evil is not evil, and I think it’s wrong to perpetuate a scandalous story on the grounds that it looks bad, even after a reasonable explanation has been given.
Let’s consider this question: how are politicians and high-level staffers supposed to comply with the high standard we’re putting forth here. Even if it were true that Tiffany’s was lobbying Mrs. Gingrich’s committee (which has been disputed, as I noted), there are obviously hundreds or thousands of interested parties lobbying that committee also, I imagine many of which are lobbying as much as Tiffany’s is. So, are we saying that any such person should compile a list of all companies from which she must refuse any promotional offer, to avoid the appearance of a bribe, a list that would be several thousands entries long, I’d think. If any one of those companies should have a sale, she should not do any shopping there, or at least she should demand to pay full price for the item, lest the sale could be seen as a bribe, despite the fact that the same sale is given to every other customer.
This seems to me to not only be unpractical but also a severe restriction of personal freedom. I see no reason why any person, politicians and political staffers included, ought not to be able to do whatever shopping they want and take advantage of whatever offers are available to any other customer. There is not even an appearance of evil in that.
Lastly, to slamfu, your argument is that since there is so much corruption in Washington, we should therefore assume corruption whenever an accusation is made that has the slightest hint of plausibility. However, you can make a very similar argument in the opposite direction: since there is so much mud-slinging in Washington, due to the fact that accusers have much to gain politically, and are rarely punished personally, for making unfounded accusations, we should therefore assume that any accusation that is not immediately backed up by pretty solid evidence is made for political gain. So, I don’t think your logic holds up.
(Again, my keyboard’s question mark isn’t working. Sorry, I think you can figure out where they should go.)
As a matter of fact I do think any accusation without evidence should be considered BS until further notice and should be ignored.
Very well. The very fact that there is controversy over this is all the proof needed to show an “appearance of evil”. Where there’s smoke there’s fire.
As far s the extension of credit…. Would they extend you credit if you asked for it? Even if it were only $1,000? Try it and let me know the results.
slamfu,
I was demonstrating how a similar chain of logic can be used to make an argument opposite to the one you were making, thus demonstrating the fallacy of that chain of logic. So, your response misses the point.
SB,
So, if I make an accusation with no evidence based on something that looks bad, and then a reasonable explanation for the supposed “appearance of evil” is given, and then that explanation is ignored by some who are politically motived to ignore it, thus creating a “controversy”, that means that the original accusation must have been correct. Got it.
Yes, let me go spend $1000 to prove Gingrich’s innocence, or, you know, we could actually expect the people doing the accusing to do the legwork to back up the accusation. But then they’d run the risk of being proven wrong and then there would be no controversy, by which of course I mean assumed guilt.