! Wake-up  World  Wake-up !
~ It's Time to Rise and Shine ~


We as spiritual beings or souls come to earth in order to experience the human condition. This includes the good and the bad scenarios of this world. Our world is a duality planet and no amount of love or grace will eliminate evil or nastiness. We will return again and again until we have pierced the illusions of this density. The purpose of human life is to awaken to universal truth. This also means that we must awaken to the lies and deceit mankind is subjected to. To pierce the third density illusion is a must in order to remove ourselves from the wheel of human existences. Love is the Answer by means of Knowledge and Awareness!



J. Dean on Enron

SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT ENRON'S CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS:
Did Enron Successfully Buy Influence With The Money It Spent? 
By JOHN W. DEAN 
---- 
Friday, Jan. 18, 2002

This is Part One of a two-part series by Mr. Dean on Enron. 
Part Two will appear on this site on February 1. - Ed.

Enron spent big money in Washington. According to available records, 
Enron lavished near $5.8 million in political contributions on 
various candidates (Congresspersons, Senators, the President and Vice 
President) over the last decade, with almost seventy-five percent of 
it going to Republicans. Indeed, according to one report, Enron and 
its officials spent $2 million on George W. Bush's political career 
alone, starting with his first (unsuccessful) run for Congress. 

What, I have been wondering, did spreading all that money around 
Washington accomplish? Notwithstanding protestations to the contrary, 
American businessmen don't make large political contributions because 
they love their country. Rather they are investments, on which they 
want a return. But what did Enron get for its money? As discussed 
below, I have concluded it received quite a lot. 

The mere fact that Enron's contributions did not buy off 
investigations into the largest bankruptcy in history means little - 
it would have been hard not to investigate given the dramatic 
allegations now being made. And prior to the eleventh hour, Enron's 
contributions seem to have purchased quite a bit of influence, as 
they were no doubt meant to do. 

Highly Questionable Accounting May Disguise Quid Pro Quos

To begin with it, it is worth noting that any quid pro quo relating 
to Enron may be especially hard to track; indeed, Enron may have 
contributed much more than the $5.8 million of which we are currently 
aware. We may never know, for Enron's reporting and record-keeping 
are not very good, as everyone is learning. 

Apparently typical is Enron's auditing firm, Arthur Andersen, which 
not only destroyed records, but also apparently failed to make itself 
privy to all of Enron's 2,832 subsidiaries' operations - the losses 
of which seems to have been kept off the balance sheet, while their 
assets and income were included. That's a neat bookkeeping trick; 
they didn't teach that one in my five years of studying accounting. 

Much of this subsidiary activity was not only off the balance sheets, 
but also offshore. About a third of these partnerships are registered 
in the Cayman Islands or other secrecy havens, which may make it 
impossible to unravel the worst corporate collapse in American 
history. Any quid pro quos, too, may be hard to root out. 

Buying Washington Influence: The Typical Goal of Big Contributors

Having been involved in fund raising, I have few illusions about what 
is involved - particularly with the heavy hitters. There are many 
contributors - indeed, by far the greatest number - who give what 
they can afford to the candidate in whom they believe, hoping he or 
she will win. But these are typically the small contributors. Big 
money comes from wealthy persons and organizations who want 
something - in most cases, something that will add more to their 
wealth. 

First, the big hitters want access. They usually have business 
dealings with the federal government and they want to be able to 
plead their case directly to decisionmakers, should they need to do 
so. 

Others want special favors, everything from an ambassadorship to 
favorable legislation or regulation of their business. Heavy 
contributors are usually well schooled in how to make their 
contribution and stay within the law. When they are not, the smart 
politician returns their money, and advises them on how to make the 
contribution legal, and the contribution, in the end, gets made just 
the same. 

Enron, like many businesses who want something from Washington 
officials, spread its money broadly. According to The Center for 
Responsive Politics, which tracks political contributions, Enron gave 
$530,493 to seventy-one senators since 1989, and $603,488 to 187 
House members. Mostly Republicans were recipients, although important 
Democrats who could affect Enron's business were not overlooked.

Enron's Investment In Politicians: A Better Return than Commentators 
Think

On January 15, Time magazine ran a story entitled "For Enron, 
Washington May Have Been a Bad Investment." The story concludes that 
Kenneth Lay & Company did not get much for their money, other 
than "[a] seat at the table for Dick Cheney's energy-policy 
formulations - OK, six seats - and the grace of the Enron-friendly 
energy policy that resulted. Possibly veto power over the head of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - former chief Curtis Hebert Jr. 
says Bush replaced him not long after Hebert declined Lay's demand 
for a friendlier stance toward energy deregulation. And a very big 
black book. And that's about it."

Granted, Enron's political largesse obviously did not buy survival 
insurance. Today, Enron stands as the nation's largest bankruptcy 
ever. Nor has it bought off investigations into the reasons for its 
failure. 

At present, there is a Justice Department task force investigation 
into Enron - although Attorney General Ashcroft had to recuse 
himself, for he received an Enron contribution during his 
unsuccessful Senate race, and the entire U.S. Attorney's Office in 
Houston also had to step aside because of conflicts. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission is also investigating. 
Furthermore, at least six (one report has it at ten) Congressional 
committees are investigating. In addition, forty-seven class action 
lawsuits have been filed - so far. And last but not least, the 
California legislature is investigating Enron's role in its 
electricity crisis.

And granted, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, Secretary of 
Commerce Don Evans, and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan 
apparently did nothing to help Enron from failing. Accordingly, 
Time 's correspondent feels that Enron's investment in Washington was 
not very helpful. But Time's analysis focuses only on the final days 
of Enron, and the apparent lack of action by high officials to save 
what was already a desperately troubled company. It ignores the 
larger picture of how Enron's contributions may have help slow 
detection of its troubles, and helped the company fly under the radar 
for as long as was possible given what now appear to be some 
egregious accounting and business practices. 

Enron insiders did quite nicely on their investment in Washington 
officials, thank you. Washington officials gave them the ability to 
trade futures contracts generating billions of dollars in revenues, 
unregulated. No prying eyes looking over their shoulders.

Indeed, Enron's investment in Washington radically changed the 
regulatory laws that permitted them to grow from an insignificant gas 
pipeline company into the seventh largest company in the United 
States, with a meteoric growth in revenues of 1,750 percent in a 
single decade. 

Moreover, when Enron hit the wall, the Bush Administration remained 
mute, even knowing Enron was disintegrating. Certainly the former 
governor of Texas had some idea of what this would mean to his 
beloved state. For one thing, twenty thousand employees of Enron 
would be out of work, with their 401(k) plan worthless. Surely a man 
with a Harvard MBA could envision the devastation this business 
failure (of a company he had once promoted) would have on countless 
thousands of Enron stock and bond holders, not to mention major 
lending institutions who had provided Enron working capital. 

In all these ways - through favorable regulatory changes, lack of 
government oversight, and administration silence until the very end - 
Enron's investment in Washington paid handsome returns for a few 
insiders, who personally made millions (but obviously wanted 
billions) from Enron. Sometimes buying influence can simply mean 
buying silence - not buying specific actions or intervention.

Federal Investigations of Enron, Andersen, and the Administration

The Congressional inquiry will be wide ranging, an effort to find out 
why one of the country's largest companies could all but disappear 
overnight. Based on reports in The Washington Post, and statements by 
members of Congress, it appears at this time that the Congress plans 
to investigate five basic questions relating to the Bush 
Administration's connections with Enron. The questions can be 
summarized as follows:

(1) What did the administration do, or not do, in the weeks 
immediately before Enron entered bankruptcy; and why?

(2) What influence did Enron have on the administration's energy 
policy, since Enron officials met not less than six times with Vice 
President Cheney as he was developing that policy, and at least 
seventeen provisions (according to one study) of that stated policy 
benefited Enron?

(3) What role did Enron have in developing last fall's economic 
stimulus legislation, which contained a tax break sought by Enron?

(4) Was Enron involved in promoting the appointment of officials 
favorable to its activities by the Bush White House? (This inquiry is 
not limited to the ousting of the chairman of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, who was hostile to Enron's free-wheeling 
style.)

(5) Did the administration arrange for Enron to receive benefits from 
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States? 

Paralleling the Congressional inquires will be the Justice Department 
task force investigation looking for criminal misbehavior, both at 
Enron and relating to Enron during the past five years (the typical 
cut off date for the statute of limitations on most federal crimes). 

These investigations will involve not only Enron officers, employees 
and directors, but also any state or federal officials alleged to 
have violated federal laws, as well agents and contractors of Enron, 
like Arthur Andersen. 

A Wide Range of Possible Charges, and Quid Pro Quo Allegations 

Violations, if any, may well relate to securities and bankruptcy 
laws, mail and wire fraud, campaign law violations, Hobbs Act 
(extortion) violations, obstruction of justice, and the conspiracy 
statutes. At present, it is only possible to speculate at potential 
violations, which is a worthless exercise. But it should surprise no 
one if it is soon reported that the criminal defense bar in 
Washington has had a sudden influx of business from the Enron fallout.

No area will be sifted through more closely than Enron's political 
contributions. Indeed, the Congressional inquires appear to be 
looking for "quid" - as in "quid pro quo." Even if the quid cannot be 
found, or is less than clear, but the campaign contribution reeks 
with influence-buying, prosecutors have been very successful using 
the federal law prohibiting gratuities. 

My discussion of this topic will continue in my next column, to 
appear in two weeks on this site, for answers to some of these 
questions are only beginning to be puzzled out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President 
of the United States.