SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Mephisto who wrote (183)4/16/2002 8:32:49 PM
From: Mephisto   of 5185
 
Examine the Cheney-Enron links


April 11, 2002
captimes.com








By John Nichols



In the spring of 2001 the severity of the California
energy emergency had inspired demands for
government action, and Enron had a problem.

Officials in California were arguing that federal price
caps on wholesale energy sales would prevent
profiteering and stabilize wildly fluctuating energy
markets. But the caps would cost Enron - which had
come to dominate energy markets by taking
advantage of deregulation - a fortune.

Enron CEO Ken Lay arranged to meet with Vice
President Dick Cheney, who cleared his calendar for
an April 17 private meeting with Lay regarding "energy
policy matters" and "the energy crisis in California." At
the meeting, Lay handed Cheney a memo that read in
part: "The administration should reject any attempt to
re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting
price caps."


The day after he met with Lay, Cheney gave a rare
phone interview to the Los Angeles Times that had one
recurrent theme: Price caps were out of the question.
Dismissing the strategy as "short-term political relief
for the politicians," Cheney bluntly declared, "I don't
see that as a possibility."


Cheney's prognosis was flawed; within days, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission agreed to
price caps, and the markets calmed down.

But Cheney was undeterred in his drive to deliver for
Enron.
The Houston-based firm enjoyed a level of vice
presidential attention during the Bush/Cheney team's
first year that included explicit support of Enron's
choices for regulatory positions and the structuring of
an energy policy task force to allow Enron and other
corporations to effectively set policy.

So close was the Cheney-Enron relationship that it is
right to ask whether ethical and legal lines were
crossed. But don't expect answers from Cheney.

Former White House counsel John Dean notes that
"Cheney says he is refusing to provide information to
the Congress as a matter of principle. He told the
'Today' show he wants to 'protect the ability of the
president and the vice president to get unvarnished
information advice from any source we want.' That
sounds all too familiar to me. I worked for Richard
Nixon."

No initiative interested Enron more than the White
House energy task force that Cheney chaired, and
Cheney welcomed the company's participation in its
deliberations. Cheney was no stranger to the
company. He had chaired Halliburton, a subsidiary of
which helped build Houston's Enron Field. His return to
politics - after he selected himself as Bush's running
mate - benefited from Enron-linked giving to the
Bush/Cheney campaign.


Cheney and his aides met at least six times with Lay
and other Enron officials while preparing the group's
report. "The fact is Enron didn't get any special deals,"
Cheney claimed in January. Yet an Enron memo
discovered after that interview suggests that the
corporation shaped the task force's recommendations.

When Cheney and Lay met in April 2001, Lay handed
Cheney a three-page "wish list" of corporate
recommendations. Enron's recommendations in seven
of eight policy areas ended up in the task force's final
report.
Noting that "there is no company in the country
that stood to gain as much from the White House plan
as Enron," U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., told
Cheney that "the recent revelations regarding the
extent of Enron's contacts with the White House energy
task force have only underscored the need for full
public disclosure."

Yet, arguing "executive privilege," Cheney is battling
requests for records. Cheney's refusal to cooperate
with Enron investigators forms the most powerful
argument for appointment of a special counsel in the
Enron affair.

Neither congressional recipients of Enron campaign
contributions nor John Ashcroft's Justice Department
will conduct the investigation that is needed. Only with
the appointment of a special counsel will there be any
realistic hope of exposing the extent to which Enron's
machinations corrupted U.S. policy at home and
abroad. The vice president's office is not only a good
place to start, it is the essential beginning point.


Published: 6:31 AM 4/11/02

captimes.com

E-mail John Nichols






Copyright 2001 The Capital Times
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext