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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (1139)1/24/2002 9:04:30 PM
From: zonkie  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 5185
 
If there is anyone left who doesn't think Enron was buying influence and using that influence for their own selfish goals must not read much about Kenny Boy and how he went about wielding his power. This is another article from before the bankruptcy. It is about a man named Hébert who was appointed by Bush but says he was afraid of losing that appointment after Kenny Boy laid it on the line for him.

__________________

Enron:
Power Trader Tied to Bush
Finds Washington All Ears

Lowell Bergman and Jeff Gerth / New York Times 25may01

Curtis Hébert Jr., Washington's top electricity regulator, said he had barely settled into his new job this year when he had an unsettling telephone conversation with Kenneth L. Lay, the head of the nation's largest electricity trader, the Enron Corporation.

Mr. Hébert, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said that Mr. Lay, a close friend of President Bush's, offered him a deal: If he changed his views on electricity deregulation, Enron would continue to support him in his new job.

Mr. Hébert (pronounced A- bear) recalled that Mr. Lay prodded him to back a national push for retail competition in the energy business and a faster pace in opening up access to the electricity transmission grid to companies like Enron.

Mr. Hébert said he refused the offer. "I was offended," he recalled, though he said he knew of Mr. Lay's influence in Washington and thought the refusal could put his job in jeopardy.

Asked about the conversation, Mr. Lay praised Mr. Hébert, but recalled it differently. "I remember him requesting" Enron's support at the White House, he said of Mr. Hébert. Mr. Lay said he had "very possibly" discussed issues relating to the commission's authority over access to the grid.

As to Mr. Hébert's job, Mr. Lay said he told the chairman that "the final decision on this was going to be the president's, certainly not ours."

Though the accounts of the discussion differ, that it took place at all illustrates Enron's considerable influence in Washington, especially at the commission, the agency authorized to ensure fair prices in the nation's wholesale electricity and natural gas markets, Enron's main business.

Mr. Lay has been one of Mr. Bush's largest campaign contributors, and no other energy company gave more money to Republican causes last year than Enron.

And it appears that Mr. Hébert may soon be replaced as the commission's chairman, according to Vice President Dick Cheney, the Bush administration's point man on energy policy.

Mr. Lay has weighed in on candidates for other commission posts, supplying President Bush's chief personnel adviser with a list of preferred candidates. One Florida utility regulator who hoped for but did not receive an appointment as a commissioner said he had been "interviewed" by Mr. Lay.

Mr. Lay also had access to the team writing the White House's energy report, which embraces several initiatives and issues dear to Enron.

The report's recommendations include finding ways to give the federal government more power over electricity transmission networks, a longtime goal of the company that was spelled out in a memorandum Mr. Lay discussed during a 30-minute meeting earlier this spring with Mr. Cheney.

Mr. Cheney's report includes much of what Mr. Lay advocated during their meeting, documents show. Both men deny discussing commission personnel issues during their talk. But Mr. Lay had an unusual opportunity to make his case about candidates in writing and in person to Mr. Bush's personnel adviser, Clay Johnson. And when Mr. Bush picked nominees to fill two vacant Republican slots on the five- member commission, they both had the backing of Enron, as well as other companies.

Mr. Lay is not shy about voicing his opinion or flexing his political muscle. He has transformed the Houston-based Enron from a sleepy natural-gas company into a $100 billion energy giant with global reach, trading electricity in all corners of the world and owning a multibillion- dollar power project in India. He has also led the push to deregulate the nation's electricity markets.

Senior Bush administration officials said they welcomed Mr. Lay's input but did not always embrace it: President Bush backed away from curbing carbon-dioxide emissions, an effort supported by Enron, which had looked to trade emission rights as part of its energy business.

"We'll make decisions based on what we think makes sound public policy," Mr. Cheney said in an interview, not what "Enron thinks."

The Bush-Lay bond traces back to Mr. Bush's father and involves a personal and philosophical affinity. Moreover, Enron and its executives gave $2.4 million to federal candidates in the last election, more than any other energy company. While some of that went to Democrats, 72 percent went to Republicans, according to an analysis of election records by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group.

"He's for a lot of things we're for," said Mr. Johnson.

But when it came to deciding on nominees for the commission, Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Lay's views were not that crucial. The two most important advisers, he said, were Andrew Lundquist, the director of Mr. Cheney's energy task force, and Pat Wood 3rd, the head of the Texas public utility commission.

As governor, Mr. Bush named Mr. Wood to the utility commission. This year, when the White House filled the two Republican slots on the federal agency, Mr. Wood was the first choice, Mr. Johnson said.

Consumer advocates and business executives praise Mr. Wood. But Mr. Lay also had a role in promoting him. Shortly after Mr. Bush was elected governor in 1994, Mr. Lay sent him a letter endorsing Mr. Wood as the "best qualified" person for the Texas commission.

In all, there are five seats on the commission, two held by Republicans, two by Democrats and one held by a chairman who serves at the pleasure of the president. Mr. Hébert, who became a commissioner in 1997, was named chairman by Mr. Bush in January.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's mandate to ensure fair prices in wholesale electricity and natural gas markets makes it crucial to sellers like Enron as well as consumers.

The movement toward deregulation sometimes leaves the commission caught in a tug of war: power marketers like Enron are trying to break into markets and grids controlled by old-line utilities, which operate under state regulation. The commission's chairman has considerable latitude in setting its agenda.

As part of its oversight of the wholesale electricity markets, the commission ordered several companies to refund what it considered excessively high prices this year in California. One lesser offender named in the commission's public filings — $3.2 million, of a total of $125 million — was an Enron subsidiary in Oregon.

Enron owns few generating assets, but buys and sells electricity in the market. Many of those transactions resemble the complicated risk-shifting techniques used by Wall Street for financial instruments.

Mr. Hébert, after he became chairman, initiated an examination into the effects those techniques have on the electricity markets. "One of our problems is that we do not have the expertise to truly unravel the complex arbitrage activities of a company like Enron," he said, adding, "we're trying to do it now, and we may have some results soon."

William L. Massey, one of the agency's two Democratic commissioners, said he supported the inquiry but had not been aware of it — an indication of the chairman's ability to set the commission's agenda.

Finally, the commission is trying to speed the pace of electricity deregulation by opening up the nation's transmission grid, much of which is owned by privately owned utilities that enjoy retail monopolies. Some Enron officials say the commission has been moving too slowly to open the grid. They attribute some of the problem to utilities. But they also fault Mr. Hébert.

"Hébert still has undeserved confidence in some of the vertically integrated companies coming to the table and dealing openly" with transmission access issues, said Richard S. Shapiro, an Enron senior vice president.

The utilities, however, maintain that they provide cheap and reliable service for their customers. Washington lobbyists for one Southern utility said that Enron was really interested in focusing on the utility's big-business clients, which under state regulation pay higher rates than residential customers.

Since 1996, about half the states have moved to open their retail markets to competition, and the commission has begun to make it easier for outsiders to use the nation's transmission grid. But the promise of cheaper rates has been largely unfulfilled. So the push for more deregulation, in which Enron has been a leader, has slowed, especially when California's flawed program led to skyrocketing rates and chaotic markets.

Mr. Hébert is a free-market conservative who favors deregulation but also recognizes the importance of state's rights. A former Mississippi regulator, he is a protégé of Trent Lott, the Senate Republican leader from Mississippi. Mr. Hébert said Mr. Lott was instrumental in his nomination to the commission in 1997 by President Clinton.

President Bush elevated Mr. Hébert to chairman on Inauguration Day, a move Mr. Lay said he told the White House he supported.

Mr. Johnson, the White House personnel chief, said that Mr. Lott and Mr. Hébert had both been told that Mr. Hébert could remain chairman at least until the administration's nominees — Mr. Wood and Nora Brownell, a Pennsylvania utility regulator — are confirmed by the full Senate. The Senate energy committee voted earlier this week to approve the two nominees, after a hearing last week indicated strong support.

It is widely expected that President Bush will name Mr. Wood to replace Mr. Hébert as chairman after the Senate acts.

In an interview for a forthcoming episode of "Frontline," the PBS series, Mr. Cheney suggested as much. "Pat Wood's got to be the new chairman of the F.E.R.C., and he'll have to address" various problems in the electricity markets, he said.

Mr. Hébert said that no one had told him he was being replaced. If someone else is named chairman, Mr. Hébert can remain a commissioner until the end of his term, which expires in 2004.

It was a few weeks after President Bush made him chairman that Mr. Hébert said he spoke by telephone with Mr. Lay.

Mr. Lay told him that "he and Enron would like to support me as chairman, but we would have to agree on principles" involving the commission's role in expanding electricity competition, Mr. Hébert said of the conversation.


A senior commission official who was in Mr. Hébert's office during the conversation said Mr. Hébert rebuffed Mr. Lay's offer of a quid pro quo. The official said that he heard Mr. Hébert's side of the conversation and then, after the call ended, learned the rest from him.

Mr. Hébert said that he, too, backed competition but did not think the commission had the legal authority to tell states what to do in this area. Concerning the issue of opening transmission access through the creation of regional networks, Mr. Hebert supports a voluntary process while Enron seeks a faster and more compulsory system.

Mr. Lay said that while he might have discussed issues relating to the commission's authority concerning access to the grid, "there was never any intent" to link that or any other issue to Mr. Hébert's job status.

The commission is a quasijudicial agency, so decision-makers like Mr. Hébert must avoid private discussions about specific matters pending before the commission. Mr. Hébert and Mr. Lay both said that line was not crossed, but Mr. Hébert said he had never had such a blunt talk with an energy-industry executive.

Mr. Lay added that his few recent conversations with Mr. Hébert were nothing special. "We had a lot of access during the Clinton administration," he said.

And he said that while making political contributions "probably helps" to gain access to an official, he made them "because I'm supporting candidates I strongly believe in."

Last June, Enron executives were asked to make voluntary donations to the company's political action committee. The solicitation letter noted that the company faced a range of governmental issues, including electricity deregulation.

This year, some people who sought but did not get nominations to the commission said that Mr. Lay and Enron had had a role in the process.

One was Joe Garcia, a former Florida utilities regulator and prominent Cuban-American activist. He said he had been "interviewed" by a few Enron officials, including Mr. Lay, who he said had not been as "forceful or insistent" as the other Enron officials.

But in their conversation, Mr. Garcia said, Mr. Lay made clear that he would be visiting the White House, adding that "everyone knew of his relationship and his importance."

Mr. Johnson, the White House personnel chief, could not cite another company besides Enron that sent him a list of preferred candidates for the commission, but he remembered hearing the views of Tom Kuhn, who heads the utility industry trade group, the Edison Electric Institute. Mr. Kuhn was a classmate of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bush at Yale.

As for his conversation with Mr. Garcia, Mr. Lay said he was comfortable with his candidacy but "I'm not sure what I told him about my friends at the White House."



To: Mephisto who wrote (1139)1/25/2002 10:41:41 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5185
 
House Vote Is Set on Campaign Bill

By ALISON MITCHELL

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 —
The advocates of
overhauling the nation's
campaign finance law gained
enough support today to force a
House vote on legislation that
would make the most
wide-ranging change in the
campaign law since the Watergate
era.

The insurgents made their move,
a defeat for the House
Republican leadership, on the
second day of the new
Congressional session, collecting
the final signatures needed on a
petition to send the bill to the
floor. They said their quest to ban the unlimited
contributions to the political parties known as soft money
had been revived by the collapse of the energy trading
giant, Enron, and the tales of how the company spread
nearly $6 million in campaign donations across
Washington since 1989. More than half of the
contributions were soft money.


"As the Enron storm clouds come in, the public's
tolerance of this soft money system is growing thin," said
Representative Martin T. Meehan, the Massachusetts
Democrat who is one of the lead sponsors of the overhaul
bill, along with Representative Christopher Shays,
Republican of Connecticut.

The six-month petition drive culminated in the early
afternoon. A final four House members, two Republicans
and two Democrats, went to the well of the House and
signed, giving the advocates of the legislation the 218
signatures necessary, a majority of the House. Twenty of
the 218 were Republicans who defied their leaders.

"The American people deserve a full debate about how
campaigns are financed," said Representative Richard E.
Neal, the Massachusetts Democrat who provided the
218th and decisive signature.

For seven years a coalition of Democrats and Republicans
has drawn wide support for its effort to ban soft money
but has been defeated repeatedly by Republican leaders.
The bill would also rein in advertising by outside advocacy
groups. Its Republican opponents say it abridges free
speech rights and would weaken the national political
parties.

"It doesn't change the fact, with 218 signatures, that it's a
flawed bill," said Stuart Roy, a spokesman for
Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority whip from
Texas, who has long spearheaded opposition to the bill.

The House passed the measure with large majorities in
1998 and 1999 only to see it die in a Republican-led
filibuster in the Senate. Last year, the Senate passed the
bill. But Speaker J. Dennis HASTERT would not let it come
to the floor after House members defeated the
Republican- written rules for debate, saying they were
unfair. The bill's supporters then mounted their petition
drive.


Such petitions rarely gain the necessary votes because
they are viewed as a challenge to the right of the majority
party to control the Congressional agenda. The last time
218 House members signed such a petition was in 1994
when the Democrats still controlled Congress and
lawmakers wanted a vote on a constitutional amendment
for a balanced budget. In 1998, then Speaker Newt
Gingrich ended his efforts to stop a campaign finance vote
when the allies of Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan came close
to 218 signatures in a similar petition drive.

Republican leaders issued no statements and debated
what to do now at a leadership retreat in the nearby
waterfront town of St. Michaels, Md. It was not known
precisely when the debate would start. "There's no final
decision on the timing," said John P. Feehery, a
spokesman for Mr. Hastert.

Representative Dick Armey, the House majority leader
from Texas, said this week that the Republican leaders
would bow to the inevitable if a majority of the House
signed the petition. He said the bill would be considered
"in an expeditious and cordial fashion." Some Republicans
said the debate would take place in February.


Under House rules, the supporters of the Shays-Meehan
bill are now entitled to bring their legislation to the floor
on certain Mondays after seven legislative work days have
passed. But since the House often does not work on
Mondays it was still possible that Republican leaders —
who oppose the measure — could try to delay the vote for
months.

Republican aides said their leaders still wanted some
change in the rules for debate set up by the petition, and
Mr. Feehery pointedly noted that Monday workdays might
not happen until June.

Once the debate starts, the outcome is also not assured.
The Shays- Meehan bill is only one of three that will be
voted on. It will have to win more support than a less
stringent measure sponsored by Representative Bob Ney,
Republican of Ohio, and another bill to be submitted by
Republican leaders. Whichever bill emerges from that
faceoff is then subject to 20 amendment attempts.


"We are moving into the new phase of what will be a long
fight," Mr. Meehan said. "We do not underestimate the
strength of our opposition." While the two men have
succeeded in the past, their supporters have always been
able to vote for change sure that the bill would be
defeated in the Senate. Not all the signers of the petition
are sure votes for final passage.

"I have not committed to vote for it," said Representative
Corrine Brown, a Florida Democrat who provided one of
the last four signatures today. She said she wanted to
make sure the parties would have enough money under
the bill to help with minority voter education.

It is also not known what President Bush will do. He and
Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, sparred
over the issue in the Republican presidential primaries
after Mr. McCain put the push against soft money at the
center of his race and Mr. Bush has expressed
reservations in the past about key elements of the bill. Ari
Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said today that
Mr. Bush "wants to see progress made on campaign
finance reform so he can sign something into law."

The petition drive was begun by conservative Democrats
and by December 214 members had signed to bring the
Shays-Meehan bill to the floor. For the past month its
supporters have been in an intense drive to find the final
votes.

Groups like Common Cause ran telephone banks.
Minnesota's independent governor, Jesse Ventura, made
calls to his state's delegation, officials said. Al Gore's
campaign manager, Donna Brazile, was enlisted to help
with wavering black lawmakers. Mr. McCain worked on
Republicans. Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the
House minority leader, contacted every Democrat who had
not signed to press for support.

The Republicans, Charles Bass of New Hampshire and
Tom Petri of Wisconsin, each met with Mr. Hastert over
the past few days, before they chose today to sign the
petition. They did so with no fanfare in the late morning.
Then with the House empty except for a few members
making speeches on pet topics, Mr. Gephardt, led Ms.
Brown and Mr. Neal to the well of the House to deliver the
last two signatures.

"God love you," Mr. Gephardt said beaming, hugging Ms.
Brown and teasing Mr. Neal, who had long opposed such
petitions from the days when a fellow Massachusetts
lawmaker, Thomas P. O'Neill, was the Speaker. Later Mr.
Bass said in a statement that he had been trying to
persuade Mr. Hastert to allow the measure to the floor.
"Unfortunately we were unable to reach an agreement,"
he said. Mr. Petri said he signed the petition because he
felt the vote should take place "sooner rather than later"
and that the effort should be bipartisan.

nytimes.com January 25, 2002