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

Skip to comments.

Enron and the Clintonites
The Weekly Standard - (The Daily Standard) ^ | David Brooks

Posted on 01/12/2002 9:29:12 PM PST by oioiman

ON JULY 5, 1995, Enron Corporation donated $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Six days later, Enron executives were on a trade mission with Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor to Bosnia and Croatia. With Kantor's support, Enron signed a $100 million contract to build a 150-megawatt power plant.

Enron, then a growing giant in energy trading, practically had a reserved seat on Clinton administration trade junkets. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who egregiously linked political donations to government assistance, accompanied Enron chairman Ken Lay on a mission to India. Enron president Joseph Sutton was on the trip to Bosnia during which Brown lost his life in a plane crash (Sutton was not on Brown's plane at the time). After Brown's death, Enron's Terence Thorn, a $1,000 donor to the Clinton-Gore campaign, traveled with Commerce Secretary William Daley to South Africa. Ken Lay also traveled with Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary on her trade trips.

There were other contacts between Enron and the Clinton administration. Ken Lay was a close friend of Mack McLarty, Clinton's first chief of staff. In his 1993 disclosure statement, Robert Rubin listed Enron as one of the firms with which he had had "significant contact" while at Goldman Sachs. Enron was represented by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, the firm where Clinton advisers Robert Strauss and Vernon Jordan worked.

And Enron benefited from its government contacts during the Clinton years. After Lay's trip to India with Ron Brown, Enron received nearly $400 million in U.S. government assistance so that it could build a power plant south of Bombay. According to reports in the Houston Chronicle at the time, the Export-Import Bank kicked in $298 million, while another federal agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, put up $100 million.

In February 1995, David Sanger of the New York Times wrote a fascinating insider account of how the deal had been consummated. Enron had been the lead bidder to build the new power plant. Jeff Garten, then undersecretary of commerce for international trade, created what he called "our economic war room" to push the American firm's interests. The State and Energy departments were enlisted to press Enron's case. According to Sanger, the U.S. ambassador to India, Frank Wisner, "constantly cajoled Indian officials." The CIA performed some risk analysis and investigated rival British companies.

Clinton himself was involved in starting the India effort for Enron. According to Michael Weisskopf of Time, Clinton scrawled a note to McLarty telling him to help with the project. Support for the Bombay power plant was just a small part of the help Enron received from the Clinton administration. All told, Enron received over $4 billion from OPIC and the Export-Import Bank for projects in Turkey, Bolivia, China, the Philippines, and elsewhere.

Under Clinton, the Commerce Department was proud that it was finally using the might of the U.S. government to assist favored firms. But the enterprise was plagued by constant criticism that somehow it always seemed to be big political donors that got most of the help. According to the Boston Globe, all but three of the recipients of OPIC aid during Brown's tenure were substantial Democratic donors. According to a study by the Center for Public Integrity, Enron, U.S. West, GTE, McDonnell Douglas, and Fluor donated a combined $563,000 to the Democratic party during 1993 and 1994 and received $2.6 billion in foreign contracts secured with government help. The Globe found that during the first Clinton term, 27 firms had donated $2.3 million to the Democrats and received nearly $5.5 billion in federal support.

All of this is not to deny that Enron was primarily a Republican donor. Nor is it to minimize the connections between Enron and the Bush administration. Rather, the connections between the Clintonites and Enron remind us that the scandal is not the donations. The scandal is what gets done by federal officials in return for the donations. And while the Clintonites received less money from Enron than the Republicans, the evidence thus far suggests that Democrats extended more favors to Enron than Republicans. That suggests that the nascent Enron scandal may not end up helping Democrats as much as they now think.

Make no mistake, though: The press corps is in full frenzy over what the Bush administration may or may not have done to help Enron as it was going down the tubes--though there is no evidence the Bush administration did anything beyond take phone calls from desperate Enron executives. But the real story here is not about lawbreaking or extraordinary behavior. It is about what has become standard practice in Washington every day.

When corporations make political donations, the money is generally not used to lobby for free market reforms--although Enron did some of that. Rather, the money is used to encourage French-style dirigisme. It is used to lure government into bed with private commercial interests. That's not an effect conservatives should cheer.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-146 next last
To: big bad easter bunny
LOL!

Check out this little tidbit from today's Washington Post:

"Enron officials later expressed elation at the results of the Kyoto conference. An internal memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States."
ROFLMAO!
41 posted on 01/13/2002 3:40:23 AM PST by Hugh Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hogwaller
See my tidbit right above for some evidence that they didn't. Bush kinda stomped out Kyoto, remember?

Still, asking someone to prove a negative is kind of silly. One could make all sorts of hints of impropriety about anyone and then say "if you can't disprove it, shut up". The onus is on the one trying to say that there was impropriety to give the proof.

42 posted on 01/13/2002 3:45:03 AM PST by Hugh Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hogwaller
You'll be hard pressed to convince the party-blind. It's all "saints vs sinners" and "your team are scoundrels, my team can do no wrong" to them. It's sort of like the kid who walks into a diner and sees his favorite professional wrestling hero laughing and eating lunch with his "arch-enemy." The kid says, "How can you eat lunch with this guy? He's an evil cheater and he hates you!" The kid doesn't realize it's all staged. The problem in politics, though, is that alot of the "lesser lights" still think they're fighing for a good cause. Even they don't see the "Inner Party." Waxman probably thinks he's fighting the evil republicans and doesn't see that Clinton and Bush are virtually indistinguishable, save for the surface presentation. How will we ever get folks to realize that it's bigger than party politics and that party politics is little more than a distraction to keep us occupied. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)
43 posted on 01/13/2002 3:46:50 AM PST by KirkandBurke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: oioiman
ON JULY 5, 1995, Enron Corporation donated $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Six days later, Enron executives were on a trade mission with Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor to Bosnia and Croatia. With Kantor's support, Enron signed a $100 million contract to build a 150-megawatt power plant.

I think that's got to be a mistake -- "1995" should be "1996," because Kantor only became Commerce Secretary after Ron Brown's fatal flight of Apr. 3, 1996. Important to get these details right in such a politically charged matter.

44 posted on 01/13/2002 4:03:03 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oioiman; spectre; alamo-girl; fred mertz; plummz; uncle bill
Enron president Joseph Sutton was on the trip to Bosnia during which Brown lost his life in a plane crash (Sutton was not on Brown's plane at the time).

This gets even more interesting. Sutton didn't miss the trip, like that head of DynCorp. He was on it, but, like Ira Sockowitz, he managed not to be on the fatal flight. And the article tells us Enron executives remained interested enough in Bosnia and Croatia to go on Kantor's trip a couple of months later.

45 posted on 01/13/2002 4:05:52 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenez
Seems to me I have read some place within the past couple of days that Ken Bentsen, Dem congressman from Houston and Lloyd Bentsen's son, has been a big recipient of Enron money. If Ken Bentsen has been so connected, Lloyd Bentsen's possible connections with Enron deserve investigation, I think.
46 posted on 01/13/2002 4:10:26 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Marked for later action. Waxman, the reformer,needs to hear about this!!!
47 posted on 01/13/2002 4:19:45 AM PST by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: oioiman

The clintons, Ron Brown, Robert Rubin, Vernon Jordan, Robert Strauss, and Enron . . . and Helen Thomas

Q ERTY1 + Q ERTY4 + Q ERTY6

= rodham-clinton-DNC-media corruption REALITY CHECK bump!


48 posted on 01/13/2002 4:37:11 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: hogwaller
You can't prove a negative, and one should not have to. Before making allegations, one should have the courtesy and integrity to meet some burden of proof.
50 posted on 01/13/2002 5:49:44 AM PST by Skeptical constituent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: hogwaller
I think your last sentence hit the nail on the head. Enron's Board of Directors failed in their responsibilities all around. It's the board's job to watch out for the shareholders by governing management and making sure company policy is sane, neither of which happened in this case.

Exactly and that has been a big problem for a while now. Add to that the accounting problem (wouldn't you love to be the insurance firm who wrote a E&O policy for AA?) and that's all this story really amounts to.

53 posted on 01/13/2002 6:28:50 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: hogwaller
You claim Bush is as dirty as Clinton, yet you provide no facts. Show some comparisons of corrupt behavior. What has Bush done to compare with selling national security secrets in exchange for cold hard cash in order to maintain a base of power? Has Bush sold access on trade missions? Has Bush pardoned anyone in exchange for cash? Are there any "more than questionable" deaths surrounding Bush? How many people with knowledge of Bush's deeds have mysteriously taken their own lives? How many women have come foward to accuse Bush of rape and/or sexual harrassment? I guess if FBI files on Bush's political foes end up in his office the press will give him a pass as they did Clinton? I'm also not aware of there being a criminal refferral on Bush at the time of the election, as was with Clinton in 1992, but then again if the press dont care it aint news. Please, just give me one Bush situation that compares with the disgrace known as the Clinton administration??
54 posted on 01/13/2002 6:30:53 AM PST by marcde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #55 Removed by Moderator

To: oioiman
I sent this to my lefty CA cousin. I have sent him so many articles like this, I think he's not speaking to me anymore. lol
56 posted on 01/13/2002 6:38:35 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dagman
It is time to take a hammer to the tired arse Lib-spew that this is anything like Whitewater.

Copy that 'The G man'?

57 posted on 01/13/2002 6:39:17 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oioiman
It is used to lure government into bed with private commercial interests. That's not an effect conservatives should cheer.

They've been going at it like rabbitts for decades.

58 posted on 01/13/2002 6:39:45 AM PST by vmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #59 Removed by Moderator

To: hogwaller
Bush is just as dirty, and you either need to accept that fact, or just stay away from facts, as they seem to get you upset.

Sure sure sure - from what?

Sliding into first base while Managing General Partner for the Texas Rangers?

I'll buy that ...

60 posted on 01/13/2002 6:51:11 AM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-146 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