The Eyes Of Newt
Newt Gingrich, who is flirting with a presidential run, is the subject of in interesting piece by the Associated Press' Libby Quaid today. It opens like this: "Potential GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has promoted public policy positions that closely track the financial interests of companies that underwrite a think tank he founded."
The between-the-lines charge here is that Gingrich is essentially getting paid off to promote certain views. "This is a massive financial conflict of interest: taking money from organizations that have a set of views, then using the weight of your name, Newt Gingrich, to advance the views of these organizations," Sid Wolfe of the liberal Public Citizen told the AP. Said Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation: "It's a phony think tank. He's nothing but a corporate shill and everything he says about health care should be regarded with complete skepticism."
The AP's decision to put forth this piece is noteworthy, since it explores the murky interaction of politicians and donors and tries to get to the bottom of what is ultimately a chicken-and-egg question. Does Gingrich adapt his positions to the interests of the financial supporters of his think tank? Or are his ideas more legitimate than that – are they his and his alone, with any support that comes as a result simply a response to them?
The Gingrich camp would obviously prefer that people assume the latter. "People join [The Gingrich-founded Center for Health Transformation] knowing already what we're for," Nancy Desmond of the Center told the AP. "So if they decide to become members of the center, that's generally because they're supportive of the direction we're going."
More than most politicians, Gingrich has a reputation in Washington as a thinker, a man bursting with ideas about how better to govern the country. That's why this piece hits close to home: It charges that Gingrich's greatest asset – his intellectual seriousness – is a sham.
The AP is too good a news organization to air this stuff without something to back it up, and Quaid's piece details numerous examples of Gingrich arguing "for the priorities of [the Center's] member companies." She notes that "[a]mong his ideas is a health system that lets consumers, not health maintenance organizations, choose the best doctors, medical treatments and hospitals. Such a goal would be accomplished with health savings accounts, which are sought by companies that fund Gingrich's think tank."
But couldn't one draw these kinds of connections with almost any politician? It's naïve to act as though this is an innocent process – that companies contribute to a particular candidate simply because that candidate's positions happen to mirror their interests. Candidates know where the money comes from, and more than a few have surely adapted their positions in order to get a chunk of it.
The AP seems to be suggesting that Gingrich has adapted to his foundation's donors in a particularly egregious way – a tough charge to prove without a window inside his head. If the charge sticks, it's bad news for his presidential prospects. But I doubt it will, since the donor/politician relationship is simply too murky – or, if we want to be cynical, hopelessly compromised – for each new charge to get reporters terribly worked up.