A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.
|
Tuesday, January 22, 2002
It didn't take long, The New York Times has come out with the curious conclusion that the Enron debacle will provide a new impetus for the passage of campaign-finance reform. Thankfully, this wouldn't be the first time that the Times' page was wrong.
First off, let's recount what happened. As Moody's was pondering whether or not to downgrade Enron's credit rating, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay made calls to the Commerce Department and the Treasury Department, asking them to intervene on the company's behalf. Both Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Commerce Secretary Don Evans declined, despite the fact that Enron and its officers had contributed thousands of dollars to President George W. Bush's campaign.
They contributed a lot of money and got....nothing in return for it. No one lifted a finger. Campaign-finance reform is based on the premise that politicians will put the interests of big-money donors ahead of those of their constitutents. It presupposes that politicians are nothing more than a vending machine; put the money in and make your selection -- the politician delivers.
The Times acknowledges that Enron received no help, but the Bush Administration's inaction isn't enough to deter the Times from it's campaign-finance reform jihad.
Aides to President Bush assert that since no one in the administration seems to have tried to rescue Enron, Enron's campaign money cannot be an issue. That is nonsense. In the last election cycle, Enron was one of the nation's biggest donors. The company and its executives doled out $2.4 million, more than two-thirds of it in unregulated soft money. What the administration fails to see is that, as Representative Christopher Shays points out, campaign money is given to obtain two things, influence and access. Enron clearly got what it paid for. Its executives were able to get through on the phone to virtually everyone they wanted.
So, Enron didn't get influence, but it got access because of its money. Though it would be difficult to prove, because large corporations give money to both Republicans and Democrats, I doubt that Enron CEO Lay got to talk to O'Neill and Evans due to the contributions he made to the Bush/Cheney campaign. I doubt that those offices keep a database listing of big donors and reference it whenever a call comes in.
"Hello, Secretary O'Neill's office. Who, may I ask, is calling? Mr. Lay, let me look you up in our database. You contributed $100,000. You have two calls remaining. One moment, please."
No, Lay didn't get through because of his connections, he got through because he was the chairman of the seventh-largest corporation in the country. The owner of Joe's Marketplace on 5th Street wouldn't get the same consideration, but Enron employed tens of thousands of people. I would expect the heads of companies like Microsoft, Ford and Boeing to be able to get through to people high up in the administration when they need to.
The Times acknowledges that Enron didn't get what it wanted when it came to its very survival, but maybe it got something from the Administration anyway.
Although Enron did not get everything it wanted from Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, the administration's regulatory policies were tailored to Enron's specifications. Last year's economic stimulus bill contained a tax break estimated at $250 million for the company.
Well, what specifically did Enron not get that it wanted? It didn't get the Bush administration to sign on to the Kyoto Global Warming accord. Enron wanted the adminstration to sign the treaty that would have been an incredible burden on the U.S. economy because Enron wanted to create a market for trading carbon dioxide reduction credits. It saw a new market for its business. However, what was good for Enron in Kyoto was not good for the United States. When Enron got things it asked for it got them not because they were good for the company, but because the administration believed it was good for the country.
The Times goes on to attack House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) for being in the pocket of companies like Enron when the time to vote on campaign-finance reform comes.
Tom DeLay is practically Mr. Enron in Congress. His Texas district is near the company's headquarters. He has raised money from Enron for himself, the Republican Party and advocate groups, in return backing energy deregulation, the company's favorite issue.
Maybe the Times hasn't thought of this, but maybe the reason why DeLay supports energy deregulation is because he supports the concept, not that he supports it because of the money from Enron. Maybe Enron gave him money because they are like-minded on the issue.
All of Washington has been blackened by Enron's shameful conduct. Campaign finance reform is the path back to respectability.
All of Washington has been blackened? All of the evidence thus far is that Washington is unaffected by this scandal. Enron executives and Arthur Andersen auditors appear to be the criminals, not those politicians in Washington (for once). It's classic inside-the-beltway egotism that everything that happens in this country is somehow tied back to the government. These were big-money crooks, nothing more. Washington may want to look at rules and regulations that would prevent other companies from using Enron's creative accounting practices, but no one in government appears to blame for the fall of Enron.
If politicians in Washington want respect, they should behave like adults, avoid name-calling and demagoguery and be honest with the American people. Campaign finance reform is a mere fig leaf, and a transparent one at that.
5:27 PM
|
|
