Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (1613)	1/29/2002 11:21:28 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 5185

They keep many, many homes, including their penthouse suite in Houston, according to the news the other night.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (1613)	1/30/2002 1:57:40 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 5185

Enron snubbed our pols Marc Sandalow San Francisco Chronicle Monday, January 28, 2002 HERE'S ANOTHER reason for Bay Area folks to hate the Enron executives; they didn't even give money to our politicians. It is now well known that the Houston energy conglomerate gave contributions to lawmakers more freely than information to shareholders. A remarkable 71 senators and 186 representatives -- nearly half of the Congress -- received contributions from Enron and its employees in the past dozen years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics. Enron donated more than $1.1 million to Washington lawmakers as part of a $6 million program of political giving. So how much of Enron's largesse did Bay Area members of Congress receive? Just $750. If you add up the receipts of the 12 members of the House who represent the extended Bay Area, and throw in both California U.S. senators, you find that about 1/20th of 1 percent of Enron's total congressional contributions went to members of the Bay Area delegation. The lucky recipients were: Reps. Ellen Tauscher of Walnut Creek, who received $500, and Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma, who got $250. But neither of those donations came directly from Enron. Both apparently received contributions from Enron employees, who just happened to live in their districts, according to the lawmakers' aides. Why was Enron so stingy when it comes to Northern California? The company gave generously to lawmakers in the California Legislature. But when it came to federal politicians, Enron apparently had three criterion for contributions. They gave to Texans, advocates of free markets and those in positions of raw power. Of the company's top 10 congressional recipients, nine are from Texas. Enron also gave to those who advocated free-market policies that kept regulators off their backs such as Republican Reps. Doug Bereuter of Nebraska and Bill Thomas of (Southern) California. Although Republicans received the overwhelming majority of Enron's money, Democrats were not left out, especially if they were in a position of influence. Rep. John Dingell, the ranking member on the House Commerce Committee, received $9,000 since the 1990 election, and Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who chairs a consumer subcommittee, received $8,250. We may never know for sure why Enron contributed so much, but a look at who they gave to seems to confirm the suspicion that they were trying to influence policy. Otherwise, it makes no sense to contribute to the presidential campaigns of both George W. Bush and Al Gore, as Enron did. Enron's cold shoulder to Northern California means local lawmakers will not have to face the uncomfortable questions about what to do with the money. Other politicians are being asked if they will return the contributions, or at least share them with Enron employees who lost their savings in the company's collapse. One local politician who knows quite a bit about raising money says the situation is not at all awkward. "I don't believe in giving money back," said San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who lamented that Enron wasn't around to take money from back in his days as Assembly speaker. "If you're going to give back the money, don't take it (in the first place.) "You're taking the money because people believe you ought to be elected," said Brown. "They are not buying anything other than good government. And if you give it back, in my opinion, you are acknowledging that you received it with something other than a clear heart." Brown comes from the same school of politics as Jesse Unruh, the larger- than-life speaker of the California Assembly during the 1960s, who famously told incoming lawmakers: "If you can't drink their booze, take their money, and (expletive) their women -- and then vote against 'em, you don't belong in politics." Of course, it's hardly an issue if they don't offer you the money in the first place. Marc Sandalow is The Chronicle's Washington bureau chief. E-mail him at msandalow@sfchronicle.com