So...you like this, Newt fans?
We know politicians and elected officials lie on a regular basis, because the sheer volume of inaccurate, misleading or outright wrong statements they produce is so staggeringly large that there can be no other explanation. Catching one of them in an unequivocal, outright lie, however, is rare. For one thing, partisans and the intellectually lazy have cheapened the accusation of “Liar!” by applying it to situations where lying is not involved. A broken promise, for example, is only a lie if the promisor knew he was going to break it when he made the promise. It is also not a lie when an elected official turns out to be wrong. A lie is not a statement that turns out to be untrue; it is a statement that the speaker knows is untrue, and is making for the purpose of deceiving others.
Was Barack Obama lying when he claimed, in his 2010 State of the Union, that the Supreme Court had “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections” ? I think so—he’s supposed to be a Constitutional scholar, after all, and should know that, among other things wrong with his statement, foreign corporations were explicitly excluded from the rights affirmed in Citizens United. I can’t prove it though; heaven knows the President has made plenty of other bone-head statements. Similarly, most of the intelligent world believes that Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman” bluff was an outright lie, but if Bill really believed, as some have claimed, that fellatio isn’t “sex”..well, his fist-pounding denial was just another Clintonian word-parsing exercise. Journalism is largely at fault for broadening the definition of lie to the point where much of the public can’t distinguish between real lies, the black-hearted variety that should sound ethics alarms and send the citizenry marching on the castle with torches and pitchforks, and the debatable falsehood. In 2010, for example, Politi-Fact called the claim that Obamacare would increase, rather than reduce, the deficit its “Lie of the Year.” It was not a lie at all. Those who maintained that (including me) believed it, and early returns indicate that they may well have been correct. Most of what are called lies in the press are really just exercises in confirmation bias. People see what they want to see, and describe it to back up what they already believe. Just like the news media.
Newt Gingrich, however, now increasingly being recognized as a GOP Bill Clinton without the charm, was just caught in an outright lie. That is meaningful, and he should not be permitted to escape its implications.
Gingrich’s last-second rally to steal the South Carolina primary was achieved though the use of his signature crowd-pleasing trick: scolding the media. In this case, he scolded poor debate moderator John King of CNN for asking Newt about the much-hyped and soon to fizzle ABC hit-interview with his ex-wife, in which she supposedly revealed that he asked her for an “open marriage.” While calling the question a personal invasion and “despicable,” Gingrich also suggested that the ABC interview was unethical, because his campaign had identified “eye-witnesses” who could disprove his wife’s allegations. This little detail helped made Newt’s towering rage at the media universal and credible, and he received a roaring ovation.
After his primary win, Gingrich went toe-to-toe with King on the latter’s cable show, and repeated his claim about witnesses. “Why would they refuse to have other witnesses rebut her? We offered them a number of people who were there at the time who said what she was saying just wasn’t true,” Newt said.
King was still dubious; he had spoken to sources at ABC. “I can’t speak for ABC,” King said, “but it says if you had offered people it would have interviewed them.” Again Newt exploded in self-righteousness.
“Oh, that is just plain baloney!” he exclaimed. “I mean, I’ll check with (my spokesperson) R.C. Hammond in a minute. But if they’re saying that, they’re not being honest. They said explicitly the opposite. I will check with R.C. because he was briefing me on this the whole way through. We had several people prepared to be very clear and very aggressive in their dispute about that and they weren’t interested.”
Except, as the Gingrich camp had to admit yesterday, ABC was telling the truth. Gingrich’s campaign had not offered rebutting witnesses, and the former Speaker knew it, beyond the shadow of a doubt, when he employed the falsehood to fuel the applause of the useful Republican idiots in the debate audience. How can we be certain that Newt was lying and not confused or mistaken? We can be certain because there were no eye witnesses to what Gingrich knows was a two-person private conversation between him and his wife.
He lied. He meant to lie. It was a planned and calculated lie. It was devised to give him a short-term advantage, and he knew that he would be caught later. Engaging in the cynical exercise of penalty balancing—Clinton’s asking Dick Morris to poll on whether it would be in his long-term interests to lie about Lewinsky or to tell the truth being the classic example—Gingrich decided that the benefits of the lie at the time would out-balance the fall-out from his lie being exposed later, as it was certain to be. Penalty balancing is the trademark of the habitually unethical.
The meaning of this incident is simple and straightforward. Gingrich is, without question, a liar. While many politicians lie, he is one who has no shame or compunction about lying to further his own interests. He cannot be trusted, and can never be trusted. A liar of this sort has only contempt for the people he lies to, as he regards them as mere means to an end. He is not ashamed of lying, and indeed regards it as proof of his cleverness and superior intelligence. That fact that many journalists and voters feel this way as well only shows how deeply ethical rot has imbedded itself into the fabric of out society. People who admire Donald Trump will love Newt, who is smarter, more refined, and even more ruthless and unprincipled.
Imagine that.
The use of an outright lie not only defines Gingrich, but it defines the character and judgment of anyone who continues to support him for the Presidency. No one who respects the office of the Presidency and the nation it must serve can be willing to surrender its power into the hands of a man who is certain to abuse it.
Ethics Alarms 
I just don’t understand how anyone trusts him. Newt Gingrich has been lying to the public since before I was born; to me the statement “Gingrich is a liar” is equivalent to “Water is wet”.
Yes, but I’m really, really trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. It doesn’t help.
Newt wasn’t lying. He had an eyewitness named…Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich was there, so he would know what Newt Gingrich said or did at the time. Newt Gingrich is an historian, so we should trust him when he tells us what Newt Gingrich did or didn’t do.
More seriously, I’m not a constitutional expert (not even for the Canadian Constitution), but was Obama that wrong? What prevents a foreign corporation from setting up a shell company in Delaware and using it to funnel campaign contributions to their favored candidates. Also, what did Chief Justice Roberts mean when he wrote “Even if considered in as-applied terms, a holding in this case that the Act may not be applied to
Citizens United—because corporations as well as individuals enjoy the pertinent First Amendment rights—would mean that any other corporation raising the same challenge would also win.”? Are foreign corporations not “any other corporation”?
Yes, your point proves that Obama, like Clinton with his famous “we were never alone” deceit, has some spin available, so it’s hard to tar him with “outright lie”. But the fact that a foreign corporation could influence elections by getting around the prohibition on their direct involvement in elections is very different than what Obama was understood to be saying, which was that Citizens United removed the prohibition against this. It is like saying that the internet legalizes copyright infringement.
But the fact that a foreign corporation could influence elections by getting around the prohibition on their direct involvement in elections is very different than what Obama was understood to be saying, which was that Citizens United removed the prohibition against this. It is like saying that the internet legalizes copyright infringement.
This is not a valid example. Citizen’s United allowed US corporations to spend money to influence US elections. US corporations include those owned and controled by foreigners. Citizen’s United does allow foreigners to legally influence US elections. It’s not just that they can do it; It’s perfectly legal for them to do so.
Now, the Supreme Court could come back and change the definition of a US corporation, or split out two categories, one that has election rights and one that does not. They could have done that as part if Citizen’s United, but they didn’t.
Along Monkman’s second point. The technical term for “foreign corporation” is a corporation registered outside the USA. The second a corporation is registered inside the USA, it is treated as a United States corporation, both under Citizen’s United and other regulations, even if it it is controlled by foreigners or a foreign corporation.
Obama’s statement accurately described what can happen. I can see how someone would mess it up, but Obama didn’t. Would it have better if Obama said foreigners or a foreign corporation can set up a dummy corporation to funnel money through to affect our elections? Yes. Does that make the idea he expressed wrong in any way? No.
I don’t understand why you hold Ethics Alarms commentary to more strict standards of rhetorical rigor than formal Presidential addresses. “Unlimited” participation by foreign corporations? That’s misleading, inaccurate and untrue…Citizens United, right or wrong, does not address or change the status of foreign corporations in American elections at all. And it is clear from the text that Obama stuck the reference in on the spot, because the term appears to modify “floodgates.” I THINK it was an intentional misrepresentation, but I KNOW it’s wrong.
Citizen’s United absolutely does allow Unlimited participation by foreign corporations. It allows it through creation of a US corporation, something that anyone can do with $50 and a couple forms.
No, Citizen’s United does not allow foreign flagged corporations to act directly in American elections, but that’s not the same as not allowing them to act in American elections. I don’t see why this is so hard for you to understand.
Before Citizen’s United: Illegal for foreign corporations to influence American elections in any way.
After Citizen’s United: Legal for foreign corporations to use US registered corprorations to influence American elections.
Seeing as how so much of the money of the citizenry (that is, those who control elections) is ensconced offshore anyway, perhaps the Justices themselves were also trying to influence future elections, in hopes of having their best buddies join them on the bench. If so…slick of them.
So before Citizens United , if a foreigner bought a controlling share of the New York Times Co., that meant that the government could censor the New York Times to prevent a foreigner from influencing elections?
No.
The New York Times is a difficult case because it is both media and corporation. Can we switch to Microsoft for a second?
Before Citizens United, Microsoft couldn’t contribute limitless money to influences the electoral process. It didn’t matter who owned it. After Citizens United, Microsoft can contribute whatever it wants. It doesn’t matter who owns it (possibly with the exception of company’s that are acknowleged to be owned or agents of foreign governments).
Citizen’s United didn’t change the law specifically about US corporations controlled by foreign interests. It simply changed the law about US corporations… which includes those controlled by foreign interests.
Going back to the original question, The New York Times is a special case because it is news media, and the rules that applied to corporations didn’t apply to news services. Again, it didn’t matter who owned them.
I find it reasonable to say that the blurring of the line between journalism and corporate interests (and our realization that this has happened) may have made the old situation untenable, but the Citizens United didn’t help matters.
Also, many countries have rules about foreign ownership of media companies. I do not know the current laws in the United States, but I know Rupert Murdoch became a US citizen (he was Australian) because he could not otherwise own an American television station.
No.
The New York Times Co. already has a great deal of influence in elections, at least in the tri-state area.
Jack Marshall catalogued how the media networks were in the tank for Barack Obama in the 2008 elections. He catalogued how the media blamed the Tea Party for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.
No.
The New York Times Co. already has a great deal of influence in elections, at least in the tri-state area.
Jumped the gun a bit, did you?
Jack Marshall catalogued how the media networks were in the tank for Barack Obama in the 2008 elections. He catalogued how the media blamed the Tea Party for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.
That’s completely irrelevant.