Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Friends in High Places: Bankrupt Enron Held Sway with Bush Administration!
ABCnews.com | December 10, 2001 | Josh Gerstein

Posted on 12/10/2001 7:47:51 AM PST by BluH2o

W A S H I N G T O N, Dec. 12 — When the energy-trading firm Enron collapsed recently after disclosing financial irregularities, thousands of employees lost their jobs and investors lost billions. Enron's fall also crippled one of President Bush's most loyal corporate supporters.

The Houston-based company was among the first to back Bush when he ran for governor of Texas. Enron and its executives went on to become the largest source of financial support for Bush's gubernatorial campaigns, giving more than $500,000, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity.

"Enron was the number one career patron for George W. Bush," said center director Charles Lewis. "There was no company in America closer to George W. Bush than Enron." Lewis says the company's goal in backing Bush and other politicians was to encourage further deregulation of the energy industry.

"Enron made a decision that they needed government to go their way and they put the money out to make sure that happened," he said.

Loyalty and Access

Congressional hearings open this week into Enron's financial implosion, which culminated in a Dec. 2. bankruptcy filing. The Labor Department, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are all investigating Enron. It's unclear to what extent the inquiries are examining the longstanding ties between administration officials and the company, which was once the seventh-largest U.S. corporation in terms of revenue.

Enron CEO Kenneth Lay has been a friend of Bush and the Bush family for years. When Gov. Bush ran for president, Enron gave him access to a company jet. (The Bush campaign reimbursed the company roughly $25,000 for the flights.)

In April 2000, when Enron opened a new baseball stadium named for the firm, then-candidate Bush sat right in front of Lay in the Enron box.

Since 1999, Enron and its executives have given more than $2 million to the Bush campaign and other GOP causes. Democrats got about a quarter of that amount.

As Bush assumed the presidency, Enron had unusual access to the new administration's deliberations about energy policy and appointments to important posts. Lay served on the Bush transition team and helped interview candidates for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees the gas pipelines and electricity grids that are key to Enron's business. Earlier this year, the commission's chairman, Curtis Hebert, who was being considered for reappointment by the White House, declared himself "offended" by Lay's lobbying efforts. Hebert later quit the panel.

When Vice President Dick Cheney drafted a new energy policy, he met with Lay and other Enron executives. Enron was reportedly the only company to be granted such a meeting.

Lay declined to be interviewed for this story.

Washington Posts

Enron alumni also fill prominent slots in the Bush administration. The president's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, and the top trade negotiator, Robert Zoellick, both served as advisers to the company. Secretary of the Army Thomas White was an Enron executive before joining the administration. When he assumed the Army post, White was forced to sell more than $25 million in Enron stock, according to a financial disclosure form he filed.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D.-Calif., has been pressing Cheney to detail his contacts with the troubled company.

"There is a very intimate connection between Enron and the Bush administration. How could they not have known what was happening?" Waxman said in an interview last week. "I think we need to find out what people in the administration knew, many of whom used to work for Enron. We ought to find out whether they ignored warning signs."

In the past, the White House has resisted requests for information about its dealings with the energy industry. The General Accounting Office, the investigative and auditing arm of Congress, threatened to sue Cheney earlier this year after he declined to turn over documents about his meetings with Enron and others interested in the energy policy he was developing. After the Sept. 11 attacks, GAO said the effort to get Cheney's records was no longer a priority.

Despite the administration's numerous ties to Enron, the White House has deflected questions about the company's failure. Reporters who asked White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer about Enron were referred to the Treasury Department.

However, Fleischer said last week that Congress has grounds to investigate how Enron fell so far so fast.

"It's very understandable why people in Congress… charged with oversight of any implications of Enron's bankruptcy would seek hearings," he said.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: lewislynn
INVESTING'S NUMBER ONE RULE: Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered.
21 posted on 12/10/2001 8:13:01 AM PST by isthisnickcool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
How the hell does one connect a company going out of business with somehow getting special treatment from the Bush adminsitration? If Bush had so much pull then why are they going bankrupt?
22 posted on 12/10/2001 8:13:36 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: getsoutalive
The company only gave 401k matching contributions in the form of company stock and participants were not permitted to sell until they had reached age 50.

The Enron employee interviewed on GMA had 21 years with the company. He appeared to be in his mid-fifties. He had tried to cash out a large portion of his 401K earlier this year and wasn't permitted to do so.

23 posted on 12/10/2001 8:15:31 AM PST by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: getsoutalive
This is a different case altogether, and something still doesn't make sense. If the company only provided company stock as matching contributions, then what happened to the employee's original contributions? For the scenario described here to make any sense (i.e., a $500,000 retirement fund now worth only a few thousand dollars), the guy must have been buying company stock with his original contributions as well.
24 posted on 12/10/2001 8:15:39 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
If Bush had so much pull then why are they going bankrupt?

Then maybe the lesson for future corporations/CEO's is don't give Bush any money.

25 posted on 12/10/2001 8:17:57 AM PST by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GEC
If they held so much sway with W, how come they're bankrupt?

Good point.

26 posted on 12/10/2001 8:22:49 AM PST by Random Access
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
You have missed the point entirely on this one. The employees were "not allowed" to sell their shares because the shares they owned were provided by the company in the form of matching contributions. In other words, the only money these employees "lost" was the money that the company provided to them in the first place! Any employee who used his own 401(k) money to buy company stock was a damned fool.

Your question about Bush/Enron vs. Clinton/Enron is an idiotic one. If this were a Clinton/Enron story then it never would have been investigated by ABC News.

Someone needs to explain to me how the allegation in this story makes any sense. Enron has wielded tremendous influence over George W. Bush since he was governor of Texas, and has used that influence recently to push for energy deregulation. As a result of energy deregulation (as well as an oil agreement that Bush reached with Vladimir Putin last month), Enron is now bankrupt. It sounds to me as if: 1.) Enron had absolutely no influence in the Bush Administration, or 2.) Enron had lots of influence but had no idea what the f#ck they were supposed to do with that influence.

27 posted on 12/10/2001 8:23:23 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I don't pretend to know what happend to anyone's account. I am just reporting what was stated in the media previously. There were probably many employee's who bought company stock with voulantary contributions, many plans offer discounts to further encourage this. I know many people who continue to do this even after I try to alert them to the dangers. But the point is many were forced to hold through this mess.
28 posted on 12/10/2001 8:23:33 AM PST by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
I've read that the books were not in good shape.

If they are going to start throwing blame around, I'd have have look at the auditors.

Public corporations must subimit independently audited financial statements to the SEC. This requirement grew out of the 1930's stock market crash, when companies regularly "cooked" the books. The false information that investors were relying on was a major factor in the stock market crash.

Either the audiors were very bad or they weren't very independent. By the way, "independent" auditors are paid by the company they are auditing.

I say investigate the company management and the auditors.

29 posted on 12/10/2001 8:25:55 AM PST by Strider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: getsoutalive
There's a story about an American financial giant (someone in the Ford family, perhaps) who sold all his stock in 1929 just a few days before the market crashed. After his newspaper boy had given him a stock tip, he realized that there were too many amateurs in the market for it to have any stability.

That story comes to mind on a regular basis these days.

31 posted on 12/10/2001 8:28:15 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
This whole thing is starting to tick me off. The liberals hold all the sway in the media and their lying in an attempt to pin this on Bush.

Remember, these liars know the Nazi mantra of "tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth".

We need to nip these lies in the bud!

32 posted on 12/10/2001 8:28:28 AM PST by LuvItOrLeaveIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
I just wonder how many incredible fortunes were made,

by those in a position to know,

by shorting Enron? Which family members benefited?

33 posted on 12/10/2001 8:39:06 AM PST by WhiteGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Random Access; GEC
That is exactly what I am saying. According to all the leftists, Enron should never, ever gone backrupt and should have made money off the backs of third world countries for eons to come. This just does not make sense. Could it be that the left's premises are all false?
34 posted on 12/10/2001 8:48:30 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: getsoutalive
The company only gave 401k matching contributions in the form of company stock and participants were not permitted to sell until they had reached age 50.

That's true. However, since most companies don't match more than dollar for dollar on the first 6% (and that is at the very top end - most offer more in the way of $.50/$1 up to 3% or 4%), the worst it could be was a 50/50 split if one invested only enough to receive the company match and then diversified the remaining assets elsewhere. I have no sympathy for someone who put ALL their retirement assets into one company.

As for the issues regarding employees not being able to sell the stock, it is very common for assets to be "frozen" when a retirement plan is going through a significant change, and plan changes are not unusual. However, the timing of this particular change is very questionable.

35 posted on 12/10/2001 8:49:08 AM PST by Myrnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
This 21-year employee is a moron. Nobody with any financial sense would have almost their entire 401(k) account invested in one company. In fact, a good financial planner will tell you that you should NEVER invest more than a token amount of money in your employer if it is a publicly-traded company.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what Enron's policies were, but it is increasingly common for companies that subsidize 401(k) plans to REQUIRE that a significant portion of the money be invested in the stock of their own companies. This is an artificial way of bolstering stock prices, and what happened at Enron may be an example of why this is such an intellectually (and morally) bankrupt idea.

36 posted on 12/10/2001 8:57:36 AM PST by ignatz_q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
That will be hard to do.

I followed your link to the self-proclaimed non-partisan, non-profit policy organization Texans for Public Justice. They have a list of donors to Bush's presidential bid, with their allegged faults [icons for pollution, corporate CEO, lobbyist, beneficiary of corporate welfare, etc]. They do not have a similar list for either Al Gore or Ann Richards.

They complain about the quality of life: here are a few excerpts:
Texas education has improved over the past decade but remains mired in mediocrity. Texas ranks No. 36 in teacher salaries, with more than a quarter of Texas teachers holding down second jobs. We are No. 32 in spending per student. ...
(No mention of test scores, percentage of graduates who go on to college, ...)

Just six states have a wider income disparity separating the richest from the poorest fifth of their populations.

With no state income tax, Texas ranks No. 2 in its dependency on sales taxes, which shift a heavy share of the burden to the working poor.

The Lone Star state is the nation’s leading host of gun shows, which exempt gun buyers from the normal rules requiring criminal background checks.

In other words, that source is raving lunatic liberal, and should not be relied on for any information about an alleged connection between Enron and Bush.

37 posted on 12/10/2001 9:02:44 AM PST by TennesseeProfessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
Is that a Haiku?

You type weird

I think.

38 posted on 12/10/2001 9:07:09 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
The New York Belfer family Enron stock was worth $2 billion and now worth little--"Belfer, 66, is an Enron director..."--- The Belfers....have also been big contributors to the Democratic causes and got caught in the Clinton fund-raising controversy.".

Maybe Rep.Waxman should comment on the Belfer family.

[Houston Chronicle, "Enron loyalty costs N.Y. family billions,-Director held on to stock to bitter end," by Leslie Eaton and Geraldine Fabrikant, New York Times , Sunday, Dec 8, 2001, page 2D]

39 posted on 12/10/2001 9:17:56 AM PST by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BluH2o
If Bush were in cahoots with Enron, then why did they have to file for bankruptcy? Why didn't the Bush Administration prevent that from happening? For victory & freedom!!!
40 posted on 12/10/2001 9:21:35 AM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson