Excerpts: ‘ . . . Patterns Became Apparent’

These excerpts are from the report submitted to the House Ethics Committee by Special Counsel James M. Cole, who conducted a two-year investigation of ethical lapses by House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Tax Issues

In reviewing the evidence concerning both the AOW/ACTV [American Opportunity Workshop/American Citizens’ Television] project and the Renewing American Civilization project, certain patterns became apparent. In both instances, GOPAC had initiated the use of the messages as part of its political program to build a Republican majority in Congress. In both instances there was an effort to have the material appear to be nonpartisan on its face, yet serve as a partisan, political message for the purpose of building the Republican Party.

. . . This was not a situation where one entity develops a message through a course or a television program for purely educational purposes and then an entirely separate entity independently decides to adopt that message for partisan, political purposes. Rather, this was a coordinated effort to have the [tax-exempt] 501(c)(3) organization help in achieving a partisan, political goal. In both instances the idea to develop the message and disseminate it for partisan, political use came first. The use of the 501(c)(3) came second as a source of funding.

Some members of the subcommittee and the special counsel . . . concluded that there was a clear violation of 501(c)(3) with respect to AOW/ACTV and Renewing American Civilization.

Other members of the subcommittee were troubled by reaching this conclusion and believed that the facts of this case presented a unique situation that had not previously been addressed by the legal authorities. As such, they did not feel comfortable supplanting the functions of the Internal Revenue Service or the Tax Court in rendering a ruling on what they believed to be an unsettled area of the law.

Statements to the Committee

The letters Mr. Gingrich submitted to the committee concerning the Renewing American Civilization complaint were very troubling to the subcommittee. They contained definitive statements about facts that went to the heart of the issues placed before the committee. In the case of the Dec. 8, 1994, letter, it was in response to a direct request from the committee for specific information relating to the partisan, political nature of the course and GOPAC’s involvement in it.

Both letters were efforts by Mr. Gingrich to have the committee dismiss the complaints without further inquiry. In such situations, the committee does and should place great reliance on the statements of members.

The letters were prepared by Mr. Gingrich’s lawyers. . . . The lawyers did not conduct any independent factual research. Looking at the information the lawyers used to write the letters, the subcommittee was unable to find any factual basis for the inaccurate statements contained therein. A number of exhibits attached to the complaint were fax transmittal sheets from GOPAC.

While this did not on its face establish anything more than GOPAC’s fax machine having been used for the project, it certainly should have put the attorneys on notice that there was some relationship between the course and GOPAC that should have been examined before saying that GOPAC had absolutely no involvement in the course.

The lawyers said they relied on Mr. Gingrich and his staff to ensure that the letters were accurate; however, none of Mr. Gingrich’s staff had sufficient knowledge to be able to verify the accuracy of the facts. . . . The only person who reviewed the letters for accuracy, with sufficient knowledge to verify those facts, was Mr. Gingrich.

During his testimony before the subcommittee, Mr. Gingrich stated that he did not intend to mislead the committee and apologized for his conduct. This statement was a relevant consideration for some members of the subcommittee, but not for others.

The subcommittee concluded that because these inaccurate statements were provided to the committee, this matter was not resolved as expeditiously as it could have been. This caused a controversy over the matter to arise and last for a substantial period of time, it disrupted the operations of the House, and it cost the House a substantial amount of money in order to determine the facts.

Statement of Alleged Violation

Based on the information described above, the Special Counsel proposed a Statement of Alleged Violations to the subcommittee on Dec. 12, 1996. The SAV contained three counts:

1. Mr. Gingrich’s activities on behalf of ALOF in regard to AOW/ACTV, and the activities of others in that regard with his knowledge and approval, constituted a violation of ALOF’s status under section 501(c)(3);

2. Mr. Gingrich’s activities on behalf of Kennesaw State College Foundation, the Progress & Freedom Foundation, and Reinhardt College in regard to the Renewing American Civilization course, and the activities of others in that regard with his knowledge and approval, constituted a violation of those organizations’ status under section 501(c)(3); and

3. Mr. Gingrich had provided information to the committee, directly or through counsel, that was material to matters under consideration by the committee, which Mr. Gingrich knew or should have known was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.

. . . As is noted above, the subcommittee was faced with troubling choices in each of the areas covered by the Statement of Alleged Violation. Either Mr. Gingrich’s conduct in regard to the 501(c)(3) organizations and the letters he submitted to the committee was intentional or it was reckless.

Neither choice reflects creditably on the House. While the subcommittee was not able to reach a comfortable conclusion on these issues, the fact that the choice was presented is a factor in determining the appropriate sanction. In addition, the violation does not represent only a single instance of reckless conduct.

Rather, over a number of years and in a number of situations, Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the standards of conduct that applied to his activities.

Under the Rules of the Committee, a reprimand is the appropriate sanction for a serious violation of House Rules and a censure is appropriate for a more serious violation of House Rules. Rule 20(g), Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

It was the opinion of the subcommittee that this matter fell somewhere in between.

Accordingly, the subcommittee and the Special Counsel recommend that the appropriate sanction should be a reprimand and a payment reimbursing the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of $300,000. Mr. Gingrich has agreed that this is the appropriate sanction in this matter.