Wertheimer: Well, people always search for ways to get around the rules. Now you deal with that in two ways. If you have good enforcement of the laws, that really minimizes getting around the rules. If the enforcement is as weak as it's been, then people just keep pushing the envelope. When you see a problem arise, you change the law. But in the campaign finance area, they block changing the law `cause they wanna hold on to the system. So after 20 years, you have problems that arise and there's been no opportunity to correct them because all of the efforts to correct them have been blocked.

So in that context, what the speaker did with GOPAC was get around the law by taking a political action committee and raising huge amounts of money that could not be used in Federal campaigns --the soft money problem that runs through the parties. Here is the first and still the largest example of the way a political action committee, as opposed to a political party, was used to get around the campaign finance laws that effect federal elections. And that's what he invented with GOPAC. Now their claim was that these huge sums of money were only being used for purposes of non-federal activity-- create a farm team in the state legislatures, help people at the local level so at some time down the road, they might be able to run for Federal office.

But, you know, Newt Gingrich's goal from the beginning with GOPAC was to use it to help take over control of the House of Representatives. It's very hard for Speaker Gingrich to argue that all of his millions that he raised, from all of these wealthy individuals and corporations, was done for some kind of local party building basis. In fact, they were done to build towards the day when he could take over the House as he's done. But in the process, and the FEC has called them on it, they failed to file as federal political committee. Therefore they failed to disclose those contributions. If they had been filing as a federal political committee, and if the FEC had not allowed the soft money system to take place, GOPAC never would have happened this way.

So you have a combination of Newt Gingrich trying to figure out how to get outside the rules of the game. And the Federal Election Commission's failure to enforce meant opening the door. As a result, you have a PAC created, not by Gingrich, but he took it over, in which very large sums of money were raised and could not be used in federal elections, but were channeled to help get people into federal office. Now the Federal Election Commission finally called GOPAC on it. And GOPAC has fought `em every step of the way. The commission is in court now saying that GOPAC has failed to properly register the committee.

To this day, GOPAC finally registers, but now, they only disclose a very small portion of their contributions from corporations and wealthy individuals. In my view that is a flat violation of the law. But here is Speaker Gingrich, now Speaker of the House, and instead of cleaning this situation up, instead of recognizing that they should have filed, instead of having them file with the commission today, this practice still goes on.

Q: So, how do you rate Newt as a fund-raiser trolling for new money?

Wertheimer: Big-time. He's a big-time raiser of big-time private influence money. He brought large sums of money in --either in soft money to the parties or in large contributions to his own, to the PAC he was running, GOPAC. Or in large contributions to the foundation he's associated with. He spent a good amount of time going after very big campaign dollars --dollars from people with a huge stake in government policy.

Let's take one example. Golden Rule Insurance. Here's a company that is at the center of an idea that has become central to the Republican proposal for revising Medicare. Medical Savings Plan. Newt Gingrich has described them as one of the most important new ideas here. Now, this company is headed by an individual, Mr. Rooney, and between them they have given huge sums of money to Gingrich's campaigns to run for office, to GOPAC, to his foundation. They've given soft money to the party, they are a source of huge contributions, new money, from someone who wanted a fundamental change in government policy. A controversial change. A change that Newt Gingrich has pushed very hard. Now Speaker Gingrich will argue and does argue, 'I am for this on the merits.' But how are we to know, how is anyone to know whether this idea is moving it's way through the system because it's a great idea, or because this company has bought enormous influence through huge campaign contributions? That appearance of corruption is part of why we have limits on the system, limits that Newt Gingrich walked around, evaded, when he started playing out his GOPAC campaign over the years.

Q: When asked why for years GOPAC wasn't releasing any names of who these donors are --the former GOPAC chair Bo Callaway said, 'We've got some of the shyest people you've ever known who contribute to GOPAC. What if GOPAC did something wrong and I was associated with it...they just don't want to be named.' Now, why not protect the privacy of some shy people?

Wertheimer: Well, because we have to protect the integrity of the American political system and the rights of American citizens first. There are a lot of shy people. You just can't combine shyness with giving huge campaign contributions in our political system. You have to choose. You can stay shy, but you can't be shy and give and be protected. I mean, no.

That's why we have disclosure laws. Disclosure is universally accepted. Everyone agrees that disclosure is a given, which makes it so ironic that the speaker finds himself in a position where GOPAC is not making full disclosure in accordance with the FEC laws. The speaker talks an awful lot about moral leadership. He talks about moral leadership being important in this country. This is not the kind of moral leadership that should come from the second most powerful person in the country.