Houston, we’ve got a problem

Social justice news
February 2002

Catholic Relief responds to Goma volcano victims
Catholics at odds over war on terror
Freedom Car plan a 'fig leaf' or U.S. automotive future?
Houston, we've got a problem
USCCB supports expanding health insurance to unborn

Houston, we've got a problem
The Enron debacle may be the most spectacular example of a too-cozy relationship between America's most powerful politicians and its most powerful corporations, but Matt Keller of Common Cause thinks the scandal hardly represents an isolated incident. For years now Common Cause, other political watchdog groups, and a handful of reform-minded politicians have struggled to change the nation's campaign finance system only to be turned back time and time again by legislative maneuvers tolerated by an apparently indifferent—or just plain perplexed—public.

"We report on this stuff all the time," says Keller, "and it just doesn't seem to penetrate. Maybe people paid attention to this one because so many people lost so much money." The bankruptcy of the Houston-based, $80 billion energy pipeline and trading powerhouse left thousands of one-time employees not only out of work but also out of long-term security. Thousands of wiped-out pension portfolios had been overstuffed with now worthless Enron stock.

Enron was just conducting itself as a lot of other America corporations have learned to conduct themselves, says Keller—buying access to public officials and a chance to influence policy through the campaign finance system. Helping pay for political campaigns, Keller says, is just the cost of doing business today in the United States and "not really that expensive from a cost-benefit analysis."

Keller believes that "maybe the public is beginning to catch on" now that the Enron scandal offers a televised seminar on how campaign contributions lead to direct access to elected officials and possible conflicts of interest in public policymaking. While Enron contributed to both parties, the lion share of its support went to GOP members now in power in Washington. Throughout his political career, President Bush has relied on the kindness of Enron and its top executives—even making liberal use of the Enron corporate jet to make his way around the country during his 2000 presidential campaign.

Critics charge that the unspoken quid pro quo for all the campaign support came due after the election as the new administration built its cabinet staff and devised its long-term energy policy through a task force headed by the Vice President. New and embarrassing revelations indicate that the Bush administration, already overloaded with one-time corporate executives with direct or indirect links to Enron, followed a list supplied by Enron's one-time CEO Kenneth Lay in making major appointments .

Common Cause reports that Enron and its affiliates gave more than $2 million in soft money contributions to Democrats (30 percent) and Republicans (70 percent) during the 1999-2000 election cycle while Enron's political action committee contributed $280,043 directly to members of Congress. Over the past decade, Enron has given roughly $5 million to federal candidates and has been the largest supporter of President Bush's political career, contributing an estimated $726,000 to his various campaigns.

"Enron got a lot of what they wanted [for their campaign donations]," says Keller.

"Numerous policies in the White House energy plan are virtually identical to the positions Enron advocated," Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, said last week. "In total, there are at least seventeen policies in the White House energy plan that were advocated by Enron or that benefited Enron financially."

Other potentially damaging revelations are expected if an unprecedented General Accounting Office lawsuit against the Vice President is successful. Already admitting that he met with at least six Enron executives while devising an energy policy that critics call short on conservation measures and overly kind to corporate exploration, deregulation, and privatization interests, Cheney has cited executive privilege in refusing to release information about whom he actually consulted with during energy policy deliberations.

Like other critics of the Bush administration's relationship with Enron, Keller is adamant that Bush and Vice President Cheney release the information sought by the GAO. Keller believes the administration may be too embarrassed to release the lists of contacts made by the Vice President's energy policy task force since it may read like a who's who of energy conglomerate officials—each with a specific axe to grind on energy policy.—Kevin Clarke

For more information:
The Enron saga
Enron: who's accountable?

Enron: Web of Intrigue
What has Enron gotten for its contributions?

From U.S. Catholic: "Government for hire"

Back to page top