Volume CXXXIII, Number 15 February 8, 2002 f

Enron and politics: A response
HUGH HILL

Enron. The first serious scandal of the Bush Jr. administration (other than the fact that his opponent actually won the election). I'll remember this one with relish.

Democrats are kicking their heels back, waiting for the axe to fall on the oh-so-deserving necks of the Bush administration. Many who remember their eight years of frothy-mouthed persecution by the half-witted religious demagogues of the "New Right" figure that it's payback time. At least this is more clear-cut than Vince Foster or Whitewater.

I was going to restrain myself from this one, as scandal mongering is scurrilous at best, but Mr. Buell's editorial in last week's Orient ("Reason, Politics, and Enron," 1 February 2002) has prompted me to engage in the mud wars.

Sandwiched between a Classical appeal for Platonic reason over passion in politics, Mr. Buell tries to both defend George Jr. and his puppet-master Cheney's conduct in the Enron case and to take the traditional conservative swipe at campaign finance reform.

While I applaud anyone who wishes to bring classical virtue into the political debate, may I remind Mr. Buell that most of our electorate today would be categorized by Plato as "bronze" (i.e. ruled by their passions and not their intellect)?

Furthermore, I want to compliment Mr. Buell's choice of subject matter. As disparate as they may seem, Enron and campaign finance reform are actually closely linked, though Mr. Buell fails to make that needed connection.

So who's going to do it? Oh, I'll take a stab. Let's try looking for the truth, without the hype, in honor of our Classical forbearers. Let us establish the facts.

Enron, a large energy conglomerate, went bankrupt. Its executives hid its financial problems from both the world and their employees. Then, the executives sold off their stock under the pretense that everything was fine.

They encouraged employees to buy Enron stock, and even forbid them from selling their holdings. When news of the company's financial disasters emerged, the executives had cashed out, leaving the employees with worthless retirement funds.

Republicans and Democrats both agree that some of these executives deserve a trip to the Federal White Collar Minimum Security Penitentiary and Country Club. But wait-there's more!

Enron was the most politically connected company in Washington. It made billions off energy market deregulation in the U.S., and showed its appreciation by donating millions of dollars to both political parties in Washington via unregulated "soft money" contributions.

Both parties received their largesse, but the biggest beneficiary of all was George Bush's buying of the 2000 Presidential race. This is where we tie back into campaign finance reform. How did most of it get there? Unregulated soft money transfers.

Shays-Meehan, a bill that effectively bans such transfers, is up in the House now. Republicans are in a tizzy, knowing that without being able to raise large sums from corporations and the rich, they will never be able to buy the TV time to dupe poorer people into shooting themselves in the foot and voting Republican.

Mr. Buell, knowing what doom the end of soft money might mean for Republicans, tries to dissuade liberals by saying that "good" organizations like labor unions and the environmental lobby will have some of their political power neutered. This is sad, but what these groups donate in soft money is a drop in the bucket compared to what corporations and the rich give.

Most Republicans admit the increased influence granted to the rich and powerful from soft money. Mr. Buell references a wonderful quote from George Will that effectually says that the rich should have more influence because they are most affected by government.

Good for George, at least he puts passion aside and acknowledges the anti-democratic, plutocratic nature of the Republican Party. I hope this pulls at every single one of your democratic impulses and makes you want to puke your guts out, because it's the most elitist, anti-American crap I've heard in a while. Let's all pray that Shays-Maheen passes the House and ends the unfair influence soft money buys.

Back to Enron. Soft money donations allowed the company to create an environment in which it could use shady accounting practices.

To the Bush administration's credit, when Lay and his Enron buddies came begging for a bailout last fall, it refused. There is some hope for President Cheney and his little sidekick Boy George (always getting into trouble he is!).

What should we take away from Enron? Money is too powerful in politics. It allowed a lot of innocent folks to really get hurt. Soft money has to go, so there won't be any more Enrons.