Isn't this kind of a switch from a few months ago? Or, does Gingrich mean that the public has a right to know if, and I repeat, IF it is the Democrats that are under the gun?

Afterall, the man did everything but inform the public as to what he was doing with donated educational funds. Did he therefore mean by the above statement the public only has the right to know if it doesn't concern his or his party's activities? That might explain, in part, why he lied for two years concerning his own lack of integrity and misuse of funds.

As for foreign donations, it is highly unlikely the public will ever get the truth concerning both parties involvement with foreign big money people. Why is it unlikely?

Not long after the story broke concerning foreign companies having ties with the Democratic Party, one news commentators (may have been Peter Jennings) listed four foreign companies which had donated to the Republican Party. However, the list was only on the screen for a couple of seconds and the writer never had time to even get his pen to take notes.

Also, it is an extremely complex business world in that ties exist we never know about. E.g., many people know of the tie between Mitsubishi and the Chrysler Corporation. But, many do not.

How many other ties are there between domestic and foreign companies that will never become part of public knowledge? It is doubtful any organization knows. And, as long as tax advantages and the like exist, it is not likely hidden companies ties will become overt.

Recently, the GOP returned donations amounting to $122,400 to a Hong Kong company which had funneled the funds through a Florida subsidiary. This doesn't amount to very much money in the world of politics. Even maintenance supervisory people in Washington make more than that each year. So, this return amounted to no more than a token of good will intended to dupe the public.

There could be millions upon millions of foreign dollars ties into our political system, including donations directed to influencing Republican politicians . And, even if targeted politicians don't know of a foreign tie, that doesn't change the effects the money can have on political decision making.

The subsidiaries in this country can lobby just as well for advantages to the foreign companies. Who would know the difference? Wouldn't the domestically-based susidiary still be lobbying for legilation in the mother company's benefit?

I agree with Gingrich that the public does have the right to know. It is one of the few times that he has made sense. But, if he really believes it, then why isn't he pushing for an investigation to be made into every company making major contributions to both parties.

It is time to make public exactly who is attempting to influence politicians and which politicians are, or have been, influenced by big businesses and exactly what companies worldwide the businesses have ties to.

It is time to demand donated money for the purpose of influencing politicians' decisions be done away with. Afterall, a business should have no more influence than the number of votes its workers account for. That is the democratic process in action rather than a small group effectively controlling thousands of votes.

Thus, Ladies and Gentlemen, if Gingrich actually believes his own statement, which is highly unlikely based on his past performance and not demanding he also be investigated fully in order to prove his own (ha, ha) 'integrity', he will initiate the investigation into major contributions made to both parties, not just the Democratic Party.