Gingrich Controversy Flares Up Over Reports of Early Legal Advice

The debate over misdeeds by House Speaker Newt Gingrich flared anew Friday following reports that the Georgia Republican had indeed received legal advice from attorneys about mixing charitable or educational funding with his political projects six years ago.

The disclosures, reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and confirmed by Gingrich’s office, cast new doubts on his future as House speaker. Democrats immediately seized on the reports as evidence the speaker had not been truthful with the House Ethics Committee, while Gingrich’s office sought to dismiss the accusations as partisan politics.

Six days ago, as part of a negotiated settlement ending the Ethics Committee’s investigation of him, Gingrich and the committee said he should have sought legal advice to ensure that a college course he taught advancing his political agenda was not improperly drawing on tax-exempt contributions, which cannot be used for political ends.

The Atlanta newspaper reported Friday that two attorneys advised Gingrich against involving charity or educational funding in political projects in 1990 and urged caution on the issue. The article was based on internal memos submitted to GOPAC, Gingrich’s former political action committee.

In a memo to one college dean, dated five months before the course began, Gingrich introduced attorney Gordon Strauss as his “lawyer for all finance, ethics and legal questions.” The newspaper said the same attorney had said in a 1990 letter to GOPAC that charitable and educational groups were barred under tax laws from engaging in political activity.

Gingrich spokesman Tony Blankley said the reports are true and are not inconsistent with what Gingrich had told the committee.

“As Newt stated to the committee, he sought and obtained legal counsel throughout the process of setting up his college course,” Blankley said in a written statement. “The committee was aware of this. It found, however, that while Newt sought the advice of counsel, he did not seek the advice of lawyers with the necessary expertise at the appropriate time.”

The new charges appear certain to complicate Gingrich’s reelection as speaker. Some Republicans already are wavering in their support, unwilling to commit to voting to reelect Gingrich until they see what action the Ethics Committee takes.

Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), who chairs the House Ethics Committee, said Friday she is pressing for a public decision on Gingrich before the Jan. 7 vote.

Johnson said in an interview with the Washington Post that she hopes to have final agreement by Monday on a timetable and procedure for ending the case.