Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Primary Event

Tracking the 2012 election.


Print   |  Text
 

Gingrich Received Over $300K for Work for an Ethanol Lobbying Group

Newt Gingrich, who said he was “not an ethanol lobbyist” in a letter to the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, worked as a consultant to an ethanol lobbying group in 2009. From the Center for Public Integrity:

Gingrich was a hired consultant to a major ethanol lobbying group—at more than $300,000 a year.

According to IRS records, the ethanol group Growth Energy paid Gingrich’s consulting firm $312,500 in 2009.The former House Speaker was the organization’s top-paid consultant, according to the records. His pay was one of the group’s largest single expenditures, as it took in and spent about $11 million to promote ethanol and to lobby for federal incentives for its use.

In a Growth Energy publication, Gingrich was listed as a consultant who offered advice on “strategy and communication issues” and who “will speak positively on ethanol related topics to media.”

Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler did not deny Gingrich’s employment with the group when contacted about the piece. Instead, Tyler sent this summary of Gingrich’s energy policy to National Review Online:

Newt Gingrich continues to draw a parallel between a sound American energy strategy and keeping America safe.  He supports an “all of the above” energy strategy to in order to create as much energy at the lowest cost while creating the most jobs here at home.

He will gladly juxtapose that strategy with the President’s current policies which are not only responsible for increasing cost of energy and gasoline but are a direct threat to national security. Unlike the president, Gingrich would expand the exploration and use of our own energy resources and encourage energy innovation including bio-fuels, not discourage energy production which will make the United States evermore dependent on foreign sources of energy and allow those whose stated goals are to destroy America to profit from higher fuel costs.

Gingrich’s “all of the above” American energy policy seeks to maximize energy production from all sources – oil, natural gas, wind, nuclear, clean coal and biofuels.

Included in his energy proposal to keep America safe, Gingrich supports:

1.       Replace the Environmental Protection Agency, which has become a job-killing regulatory engine of higher energy prices, with an Environmental Solutions Agency that would work cooperatively with local government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes while considering the impact of federal environmental policies on job creation and the cost of energy.

2.       End the ban on oil shale development in the American West, where we have three times the amount oil as Saudi Arabia.

3.       Give coastal states federal royalty revenue sharing so that state’s budgets directly benefits from offshore development.

4.       Enact a loser-pays law to force the losers in environmental lawsuits to pay all legal costs for the prevailing side, which will reduce frivolous lawsuits that are employed simply to stop energy production.

5.       Finance cleaner energy research and projects with new oil and gas royalties.

6.       Appoint a commission of engineers and scientists, not politicians, to study the damaged nuclear reactor in Japan and determine if any changes need to be made to US nuclear power standards.

Gingrich was criticized about his support for ethanol by the Journal earlier this year in a scathing editorial. He’s not the only possible 2012 contender with a record of supporting ethanol interests: Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels have also been friends to the ethanol industry.

Tags: Newt Gingrich

New on The Primary Event. . .


COMMENTS   4

EXPAND  

   04/25/11 16:16

No one who loves this country more than his or her own career or personal self-interest or the strictly parochial interests of his or her state can defend our corn-based ethanol use, let alone mandates and subsidies.

Corn-based ethanol is bad for our pocketbooks, bad for our vehicles, and most ironic of all, bad for our environment when all the various costs vs. benefits are factored in.

As far as vehicles are concerned... as far as fossil fuels are concerned... modern (relatively) clean diesel makes the most sense.

Any politician who doesn't know all this - just as a matter of "trivial pursuit" type general knowledge - is far too ignorant to even be considered a viable presidential candidate.

As for Newt... (*SIGH*)... he simply can't be trusted.

Newt consistently places "Newt" ahead of America.

Believe me, folks... I regret having to point this out.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Graeme Rodda - Melbourne Australia
   04/25/11 20:20

Congratulations on an article of "topical interest"; though it has been around (the subject of 'alternate fuels' that is)for decades. But it is one that always bears keen observation.

Some 30 plus years ago there was a development planned and twin companies launched here in OZ for the development of shale oil fields. Surveys looked very promising and received widespread support from right across the spectrum of trade, industry, commerce and the public with just s few exceptions.

Importantly 'supporters' included key environmentalists too. The opposition of course was led by the petroleum industry, as expected, with "self-interest" the obvious motivation. Eventually; after their offer of purchase of the projects 'in toto'; AND other "unexplained happenings"; their efforts eventuated in the group going out of business.perhaps this was a co-incidence; but just maybe not.

Lesson learned the hard way by those with vision, who just wanted our own country to be less reliant on M E oil AND had the "balls" to endeavor to provide that together with reasonable environmental safeguards too. (Remember the OPEC crises of the early seventies)? So the reasonable observation is that yes; we do need to watch proponents; but NOT to the degree of painting them all 'devils, mongrels and manipulators"; because nothing could be farther from the truth.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/25/11 20:43

Ethanol is as good a litmus test of whether a Presidential candidate recognizes the seriousness of the economy, and the concept of unintended consequences of government subsidies.

Newt fails. Rick Santorum fails. I'm not sure who passed the test yet.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
BentleyOwen
   04/26/11 02:01

Doesn't "all the above" really mean "all the special interests"?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact