Major GOPAC Donors Got Special Access, Files Show : Politics: Gingrich group offered personal attention from the Republican representative to those giving $10,000.

To hear the defenders of Newt Gingrich tell it, the embattled House speaker is guilty of nothing more than mastering the art of politics.

But interviews and recently released federal records show that Gingrich has invited critical attention by bestowing special treatment on donors who gave substantial sums to his pet political project.

The project was the GOP Action Committee, called GOPAC, which raised untold millions of dollars over the last decade for the Republican revolution that Gingrich was fomenting. By using GOPAC, Gingrich could encourage corporate executives to donate unlimited amounts with the assurance that their contributions would not be revealed in records open to the public.

In letters to supporters, GOPAC left little doubt that those who gave at least $10,000 a year would enjoy extraordinary access to the Republican congressman from Georgia.

Part of what made GOPAC unique, according to the letters, was the opportunity to “work with Newt Gingrich and to influence his issues and direction.” Gingrich himself extended invitations for contributors to accompany him on 6 a.m. walks for “an hour of uninterrupted conversation.”

Sometimes, the treatment exceeded casual conversation and a ready ear, according to voluminous records obtained through the Federal Election Commission and the Freedom of Information Act.

For example, when the nation’s largest producer of cement was struggling to win a favorable government ruling in a trade dispute with Mexican competitors, the firm wrote a $10,000 check to GOPAC and received prompt assistance from Gingrich and a fellow congressman who was GOPAC’s Texas chairman.

On other occasions, Gingrich helped GOPAC donors by arranging meetings with officials of George Bush’s administration and relaying specific business concerns about government regulations.

These actions raise new questions about whether the man who now is House speaker exceeded the bounds of propriety. Although it is accepted practice for members of Congress to aggressively seek financial support, they are prohibited by law from taking official action in exchange for anything of value, including contributions.

Gingrich’s office referred calls seeking his comment to GOPAC Executive Director Lisa B. Nelson. She said Gingrich, who resigned as GOPAC chairman this year, responds to requests for assistance based on merit.

“In Newt’s case, it doesn’t matter whether they give money or not,” Nelson said. “Every day of the week he meets with people who don’t give a dime. He would help them as much as he would help anyone else.”

A 1991 internal analysis of GOPAC operations warned that Gingrich could be criticized for soliciting large sums from donors who seek to gain special treatment but dismissed the concern as a false allegation.

“There is no hint of any contributor who gives money in return for influence,” the analysis concluded. “All of our contributors . . . want no more from their contributions than a chance to contribute to a cause they believe in.”

Since his peers elected him speaker in January, Gingrich has been dogged by allegations that he violated ethical standards.

Democrats filed a new complaint with the House Ethics Committee on Thursday, accusing Gingrich of breaking tax and election laws by using up to $20 million in GOPAC funds to advance his political career. The charges stem from a Federal Election Commission lawsuit that contends GOPAC created “the appearance of corruption” by ignoring federal restrictions and spending large sums on GOP congressional candidates--including at least $250,000 to reelect Gingrich himself. Gingrich has called the charges phony.

Common Cause President Ann McBride last week urged the Ethics Committee to examine Gingrich’s role with GOPAC. “Under such circumstances--with multiple large campaign contributions tied to an implicit request for official help--a reasonable person would expect that a member of Congress would return the contribution check,” McBride wrote.

Earlier this month, the ethics panel voted to hire an outside counsel to determine whether the financing of a college course that Gingrich taught violated tax laws. The bipartisan committee also found that Gingrich broke House rules by misusing official resources but cleared him of other accusations.

Interviews with people involved in GOPAC’s transactions and a Times review of thousands of internal documents unveiled as part of the FEC lawsuit--including memos and solicitation letters written from 1989 to 1991--shed added light on how GOPAC raised contributions under Gingrich’s leadership. During this period, Gingrich was minority whip--the second-ranking Republican in the House.

Still, much remains unknown about GOPAC, including the total amount of money collected and spent, as well as the identities of donors. The organization has maintained that it is largely exempt from federal election laws that limit individual contributions and ban corporate donations.

GOPAC was formed in 1978 by 13 Republican governors to support GOP candidates for state and local offices. When Gingrich became general chairman in 1986, the organization began focusing on wresting control of the House from the Democrats.

The 1991 internal analysis of GOPAC operations underscores the committee’s dependence on Gingrich to raise funds: It warned that GOPAC would lose $410,000 if Gingrich were to miss a one-week fund-raising trip.

Gingrich courted and stroked top business executives across America--arranging White House receptions with Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bush, regular visits with top Cabinet officials and members of Congress, private tours of the House chamber and exclusive access to Gingrich himself.

Some charter members, who donated at least $10,000 yearly, were not bashful about expressing their displeasure when they felt ignored.

*

Philip Gelatt, the owner of a Wisconsin company who has contributed $230,000, canceled his appearance at a GOPAC retreat in Colorado when he learned Gingrich would not show up. A GOPAC staffer, while noting that Gelatt was prepared to give “in the six figures,” relayed in a memo that Gelatt said “something to the effect that he doesn’t mind paying the piper if the piper plays.”

On other occasions, however, Gingrich and his top lieutenants were quite willing to accommodate GOPAC donors.

When executives of the largest American-owned company that produces cement decided to support GOPAC, they wrote checks for one reason, according to interviews and correspondence reviewed by The Times:

They wanted help.

After waging a losing battle for a decade, executives at Houston-based Southdown Inc. were determined to counter the aggressive trade practices of two Mexican cement producers.

On four occasions, executives from Southdown and other cement makers in the Southwest had complained to U.S. authorities that the largest of the Mexican companies, CMEX, was “dumping” cement in Southern states at heavily discounted prices. On four occasions, the American firms had been rebuffed.

This time they took an added step: Fearing that CMEX had gained the assistance of then-Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, executives at Southdown sought their own champions. They chose GOPAC.

“We reached out because we thought we needed help,” said a Southdown employee. “We wanted some letters written to the International Trade Commission.”

Their newfound bridge to Washington was Dallas-area Rep. Joe L. Barton, GOPAC’s Texas chairman, who was responsible for fund-raising there. In 1989 and 1990, Southdown officials wrote $25,000 in checks to GOPAC. And the letters flowed.

A Sept. 27, 1989, letter from a Southdown executive to Barton shows how closely the company’s support of GOPAC was tied to the cement-dumping dispute.

“Thank you for interrupting your busy schedule yesterday and visiting with me and my associates regarding our dumping case against Mexican cement producers. I also appreciate your offer of assistance in that matter,” wrote Southdown’s executive vice president and general counsel, Edgar J. Marston III, who added in his two-paragraph letter:

“As we discussed several months ago, I am enclosing a check for $10,000 payable to GOPAC.”

Barton gathered signatures on behalf of Southdown, and Gingrich and 15 other GOP House members signed two letters, dated Oct. 20, 1989. They urged the federal International Trade Commission and then-Commerce Secretary Robert A. Mosbacher not to be swayed in the cement dispute by the U.S. government’s warm relations with Salinas. The letter was ultimately signed by 19 Democrats as well.

Joseph W. Dorn, a lawyer who represented the U.S. cement firms, told The Times that the letters were intended to counterbalance Salinas’ influence with the Bush administration.

*

Less than a month later, the ITC, by a 5-0 vote, found a “reasonable indication” that the American cement producers had been injured by the Mexican producers’ sales. The dispute was referred to the Commerce Department, which found that dumping had occurred.

The case culminated on Aug. 23, 1990, when, by a 2-1 vote (with two members absent), ITC appointees of Bush found that the dumping had caused the U.S. companies “material injury.” As a result, the U.S. government ordered that sales from the Mexican producers would be subject to duties, which remain in effect in border-area states from California to Florida. (Southdown has supplied cement for construction throughout California, including the Los Angeles Metro Rail project.)

On Dec. 13, 1990, Gingrich wrote Southdown’s Marston a “Dear Ed” letter, thanking the executive “for staying on board as a charter member.”

A Southdown representative, Karen A. Twitchell, said last week that the company would not comment on why it contributed to GOPAC. Southdown stopped giving to GOPAC after the trade dispute was resolved.

Barton denied through a spokesman that he had helped Southdown in exchange for its money. The spokesman, Craig L. Murphy, said that Barton sponsored the trade-dispute letters because his district, although not encompassing Southdown’s headquarters, was home to many cement producers.

“It would be illogical not to stand up . . . when Mexicans are dumping cement into the United States,” Murphy said.

In another case, Gingrich arranged for Emil E. Ogden, a Texas oil entrepreneur who has contributed at least $51,260 to GOPAC, to contact an Energy Department official in the Bush White House.

“I have also written to [the official] on your behalf,” Gingrich wrote Ogden in a January 1989 letter. “Please let me know if there is anything more I can do to help.”

Ogden, who is now retired, said he could not recall the request he made of Gingrich or what he was seeking from the White House.

Gingrich’s care and feeding of GOPAC contributors was demonstrated again in his relationship with Miller Nichols, a Kansas City, Mo., businessman. Gingrich and Nichols exchanged at least 14 letters between December 1989 and April 1991.

Nichols, a commercial real estate developer, regarded federal policy concerning asbestos, the hazardous insulation material, as a detriment to his business. Nichols has given at least $81,600 to GOPAC and enlisted contributions from friends and employees.

But Nichols, whose company owned buildings constructed in the 1920s with materials that included asbestos, also wanted Gingrich’s help. After reminding Gingrich of his donations, Nichols told the congressman, in a Jan. 19, 1990, letter:

*

“The federal government is causing the J. C. Nichols Company as well as many other companies throughout America a great deal of financial stress. This is in connection with the asbestos regulations. . . . It may be that I will call you for an appointment to come back to Washington to discuss this issue. . . . It is costing my company millions and millions of dollars.”

Six days later, Gingrich responded:

“Your continued support of GOPAC is very important to me! I want you to know how very much I appreciate your generous contribution! . . . Regarding the problematic asbestos regulations--please send me a copy of your research when you are finished and I will look into it.”

True to his word, Gingrich acted on Nichols’ complaint. In an April 1991 letter to William K. Reilly, then-administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Gingrich wrote: “I am writing you with concern over the crisis that is arising in our courts from asbestos regulation. . . . I would appreciate any help you could lend to this matter.” Gingrich designated Nichols as a “cc” recipient on the letter.

Reilly directed an asbestos specialist at the EPA to phone Gingrich’s staff regarding the congressman’s request, according to Deborah Johnson, an agency spokeswoman.

Nichols, who has continued giving $10,000 annually to GOPAC, was unavailable for comment. Reached at their home near Kansas City, Jeanette Nichols said she and her husband have donated because they support GOPAC’s goal of grooming new Republican leaders. She acknowledged that her husband also voiced his concern about asbestos to Gingrich.

“One year he wrote to Newt, he was vexed,” Jeannette Nichols said. “ . . . you’ve got a congressman back there--you’re going to tell him.”

Times staff writer Alan C. Miller contributed to this story.