Friday, June 25, 2004
Enron Madness!
Man, what a week! We've seen hints that Ken Lay is about to be indicted, Governor John Rowland plays at being honorable and resigns as governor of Connecticut, and Dick Cheney is let off the hook by the Supreme Court.
Whoa! And all that follows closely on the heels of the transcripts of conversations between Enron energy traders which revealed how Enron encouraged the California energy crisis by manipulating the market.
All I can say is Thank God! for governmental regulators. You guys are doing great!
The more Derek and I dig into the Enron apple, the more rotten this sucker gets. What started as a nice little bit of cronyism gone horribly wrong has turned into this behemoth of a story that continues to turn up worm after worm after worm in state capitals all over the United States.
Check out some of the pieces of the puzzle we've assembled so far:
-Ken Lay and Enron - Factsheet/Timeline
-What Did Dick Know and When Did He Know It? - Derek's Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle and his related Post
-John Rowland, Electricity Deregulation, and Enron - Background and Analysis
-Sign up for our Enron Updates:
And finally, if you want to do a little primary research, you can check out the transcripts of the audiotapes of the Enron traders here - (Enter date range 5/17/2004 to present, docket number EL03-180-, and submit. It is the second file from the bottom. Click "FERC generated PDF", and you're on your way towards hours of mildly nauseating entertainment.
Man, what a week! We've seen hints that Ken Lay is about to be indicted, Governor John Rowland plays at being honorable and resigns as governor of Connecticut, and Dick Cheney is let off the hook by the Supreme Court.
Whoa! And all that follows closely on the heels of the transcripts of conversations between Enron energy traders which revealed how Enron encouraged the California energy crisis by manipulating the market.
All I can say is Thank God! for governmental regulators. You guys are doing great!
The more Derek and I dig into the Enron apple, the more rotten this sucker gets. What started as a nice little bit of cronyism gone horribly wrong has turned into this behemoth of a story that continues to turn up worm after worm after worm in state capitals all over the United States.
Check out some of the pieces of the puzzle we've assembled so far:
-Ken Lay and Enron - Factsheet/Timeline
-What Did Dick Know and When Did He Know It? - Derek's Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle and his related Post
-John Rowland, Electricity Deregulation, and Enron - Background and Analysis
-Sign up for our Enron Updates:
And finally, if you want to do a little primary research, you can check out the transcripts of the audiotapes of the Enron traders here - (Enter date range 5/17/2004 to present, docket number EL03-180-, and submit. It is the second file from the bottom. Click "FERC generated PDF", and you're on your way towards hours of mildly nauseating entertainment.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
The Running Man - N.J. Congressman Stays Mum on Debate
Looks like six-time Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey's 11th Congressional District is sitting pretty. Sitting being the operative word.
As Phil Garber reports in the Mt. Olive Chronicle, Frelinghuysen has $700,000 in his campaign fund; his opponent James Buell has $1,112. Not only that, but Frelinghyuysen got 73% of the vote in the 2002 elections. You'd think the guy would be swimming in confidence. And yet, Frelinghuysen won't respond to Buell's request for a debate.
I hate it when pols hide behind a lead in the polls. What are they scared of? If you're the person for the job, the electorate will let you know after you've put yourself in front of them and matched your arguments against your opponent's.
Elections in a democracy should be a competition of ideas, of political vision, of policies. What's wrong with that? How can we see the competition if one guy is smokin' stogies in the locker room the whole time?
The media in New Jersey, and all over the U.S. for that matter, has a responsibility to use the public airwaves to strengthen and nourish our democracy. They can and should do this by providing free airtime for public debates and candidate position statements, and better coverage of campaigns.
And in the meantime, if you think it would be a good idea for the Congressman to come out and play democracy with the rest of us, drop him a line encouraging him to debate his opponent(s).
His e-mail: Rodney.Frelinghuysen@mail.house.gov
Looks like six-time Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey's 11th Congressional District is sitting pretty. Sitting being the operative word.
As Phil Garber reports in the Mt. Olive Chronicle, Frelinghuysen has $700,000 in his campaign fund; his opponent James Buell has $1,112. Not only that, but Frelinghyuysen got 73% of the vote in the 2002 elections. You'd think the guy would be swimming in confidence. And yet, Frelinghuysen won't respond to Buell's request for a debate.
I hate it when pols hide behind a lead in the polls. What are they scared of? If you're the person for the job, the electorate will let you know after you've put yourself in front of them and matched your arguments against your opponent's.
Elections in a democracy should be a competition of ideas, of political vision, of policies. What's wrong with that? How can we see the competition if one guy is smokin' stogies in the locker room the whole time?
The media in New Jersey, and all over the U.S. for that matter, has a responsibility to use the public airwaves to strengthen and nourish our democracy. They can and should do this by providing free airtime for public debates and candidate position statements, and better coverage of campaigns.
And in the meantime, if you think it would be a good idea for the Congressman to come out and play democracy with the rest of us, drop him a line encouraging him to debate his opponent(s).
His e-mail: Rodney.Frelinghuysen@mail.house.gov
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Is Arnold Playing Games with Democracy?
I was on TV yesterday with ABC's Marcy Brightwell talking about big money coming from Indian casinos in California politics. See the clip here. Here's the background:
When he was running in the recall campaign, Arnold Schwarzenegger really laid into Grey Davis, Cruz Bustamonte, and Tom McClintock for raising money from Indian casinos. Arnold's ads said "All the other major candidates take their money and pander to them. I don't play that game."
Well, that was then and this is now. On Monday, the Governor announced a deal that he struck behind closed doors with 5 tribes to protect their monopoly on slot machine gambling in exchange for them kicking in some money to help with the state's budget crisis. Arnold will now work to defeat two ballot initiatives that would expand slot machine use in the state. And, it's now looking like he'll accept Indian casino money to help him do that. See details here in the Los Angeles Times with the Governator's aides suggesting it may now be OK for Arnold to take money from the tribes now that he's in agreement with them.
I sure don't have all the answers to gambling policy, and polls show that Californians are of two minds on the topic. That's fine. But we have a right to decide our gambling rules without the interference of powerful private interests who stand to make billions off the deal.
Candidate Schwarzenegger understood this when he promised to get special interest money out of politics. But its beginning to look like Governor Schwarzenegger is playing the same game that other politicians have played, rather than changing the rules to create a more honest game in the future.
In fact, it now looks as though Arnold is actively opposing positive reforms in how ballot initiatives are financed. The California Fair Political Practises Commission is considering regulations on how much candidates can solicit for ballot measures (here's the FPPC staff memo on the issue.) See this story by Dion Nissenbaum in the Contra Costa Times, where Arnold's staff attorney says this:
That's exactly right. The Governor has the right to oppose ballot measures he doesn't like. But he should do so with limited contributions. Get used to it Arnold, its a concept called "one person, one vote."
California Senator Ross Johnson has a letter to the FPPC supporting reform here. Paul Ryan of the Center for Governmental Studies has one here. Arnold's lawyer has one opposing the reform here.
We should remember that Arnold launched his political career around the feel good Prop 49 in 2002 that provided funding for after school programs. Here's a link to the folks who gave money to that campaign, including Emulex Corporation for $60,000 plus ate least another $320,000 from its CEO Paul Falino, Richard Santullie, CEO of Net-Jets Corporation (for at least $100,000), Todd Wagner of Dallas, Texas (for at least $600,000), Jeff Pericho of Univision (for at least $1,000,000), the corporation of Conexant Systems for $50,000, The Morongo Band of Indiants ($25,000), The Yucaipa Companies LLC ($100,000), developer Alex Spanos ($100,000).
UPDATE: On Friday, June 25, the California Fair Political Practices Commission adopted regulations that will apply California's (very high) contribution limits to ballot committees that are controlled by candidates. This will mean that Arnold cannot raise more than $21,200 for any ballot committee he controls. See our news release here for additional details.
I was on TV yesterday with ABC's Marcy Brightwell talking about big money coming from Indian casinos in California politics. See the clip here. Here's the background:
When he was running in the recall campaign, Arnold Schwarzenegger really laid into Grey Davis, Cruz Bustamonte, and Tom McClintock for raising money from Indian casinos. Arnold's ads said "All the other major candidates take their money and pander to them. I don't play that game."
Well, that was then and this is now. On Monday, the Governor announced a deal that he struck behind closed doors with 5 tribes to protect their monopoly on slot machine gambling in exchange for them kicking in some money to help with the state's budget crisis. Arnold will now work to defeat two ballot initiatives that would expand slot machine use in the state. And, it's now looking like he'll accept Indian casino money to help him do that. See details here in the Los Angeles Times with the Governator's aides suggesting it may now be OK for Arnold to take money from the tribes now that he's in agreement with them.
I sure don't have all the answers to gambling policy, and polls show that Californians are of two minds on the topic. That's fine. But we have a right to decide our gambling rules without the interference of powerful private interests who stand to make billions off the deal.
Candidate Schwarzenegger understood this when he promised to get special interest money out of politics. But its beginning to look like Governor Schwarzenegger is playing the same game that other politicians have played, rather than changing the rules to create a more honest game in the future.
In fact, it now looks as though Arnold is actively opposing positive reforms in how ballot initiatives are financed. The California Fair Political Practises Commission is considering regulations on how much candidates can solicit for ballot measures (here's the FPPC staff memo on the issue.) See this story by Dion Nissenbaum in the Contra Costa Times, where Arnold's staff attorney says this:
"If adopted," Hiltachk wrote, "the regulation would prevent the governor from controlling a committee to oppose these two measures that are a direct assault on his constitutional power, unless he were to agree to oppose the well-funded campaigns for the initiatives using limited contributions."
That's exactly right. The Governor has the right to oppose ballot measures he doesn't like. But he should do so with limited contributions. Get used to it Arnold, its a concept called "one person, one vote."
California Senator Ross Johnson has a letter to the FPPC supporting reform here. Paul Ryan of the Center for Governmental Studies has one here. Arnold's lawyer has one opposing the reform here.
We should remember that Arnold launched his political career around the feel good Prop 49 in 2002 that provided funding for after school programs. Here's a link to the folks who gave money to that campaign, including Emulex Corporation for $60,000 plus ate least another $320,000 from its CEO Paul Falino, Richard Santullie, CEO of Net-Jets Corporation (for at least $100,000), Todd Wagner of Dallas, Texas (for at least $600,000), Jeff Pericho of Univision (for at least $1,000,000), the corporation of Conexant Systems for $50,000, The Morongo Band of Indiants ($25,000), The Yucaipa Companies LLC ($100,000), developer Alex Spanos ($100,000).
UPDATE: On Friday, June 25, the California Fair Political Practices Commission adopted regulations that will apply California's (very high) contribution limits to ballot committees that are controlled by candidates. This will mean that Arnold cannot raise more than $21,200 for any ballot committee he controls. See our news release here for additional details.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
How Dare They? Virginia Legislators' Request for Money Denied by Hospital PAC
The clock is ticking for Virginia legislators as they fight to raise as much money as possible before a June 30 reporting deadline. The Legislature's extended session has eaten into their fundraising time this year, resulting in a mad dash for funds to show that as a candidate, you've got the right stuff. (Money)
In the course of these efforts, some Virginia legislators have sent out various requests for campaign contributions to wealthy donors and Political Action Committees (PACs). The response that seven legislators got to their request from the Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association's (VHHA) PAC suggests why the state of Virginia is sometimes known as the "Mother of Statesmen".
As Pamela Stallsmith of The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports, VHHA's senior vice-president and chief lobbyist Katherine Webb had this to say to the seven legislators who voted against a $1.4 billion tax increase:
In language the rest of us can understand- no money for us = no money for you. Webb continues, stating that the purpose of the VHHA PAC:
Oooeee! that's some statesmanship right theyah! But let's be clear about the import of Webb's words. The letter is not only a denial of funding now - it also makes clear that VHHA will give money in the future only to those candidates who agree with their position. Which means to future opponents of the seven legislators brazen enough not to vote exactly how VHHA wants.
It's a threat.
This is the problem. Politicians can say that they are not influenced by big money donors, whether individuals or PACs, but when it comes right down to it, all pols need money to get elected and to stay elected. It doesn't matter how pretty they say it: if your donors say "no money unless you change your tune", you either change your tune or pack your bags, 'cause under the current system, you're done.
Maybe big money shouldn't be able to influence our elected officials by influencing their chances for re-election. Maybe the representatives in a representative democracy should be accountable to all the people, not just those with enough money to wield as a hammer come election time.
Some of the legislators got pretty miffed at the suggestions in VHHA's letter, and are talking about opening up a bribery investigation. Shoot. Nearly every single American could give you the results of that investigation before you even get started:
This is our system. This is what happens every day in letters and e-mails and phone calls and conversations in nearly every state in the union and certainly in Washington D.C. This is how regular folks end up making less and less and paying more and more for gas and health care and education and milk, while rich folks get richer and richer off our tax dollars. This is how people can sit at home on Election Day because they don't think their vote makes any difference. This is how we stopped believing in the power of we the people to make a change through our elected government.
This is what is wrong in America. This is what we gotta change.
The clock is ticking for Virginia legislators as they fight to raise as much money as possible before a June 30 reporting deadline. The Legislature's extended session has eaten into their fundraising time this year, resulting in a mad dash for funds to show that as a candidate, you've got the right stuff. (Money)
In the course of these efforts, some Virginia legislators have sent out various requests for campaign contributions to wealthy donors and Political Action Committees (PACs). The response that seven legislators got to their request from the Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association's (VHHA) PAC suggests why the state of Virginia is sometimes known as the "Mother of Statesmen".
As Pamela Stallsmith of The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports, VHHA's senior vice-president and chief lobbyist Katherine Webb had this to say to the seven legislators who voted against a $1.4 billion tax increase:
Your failure to vote for a budget that only provided a modest increase places us in the difficult position of denying your contribution request. We would be happy to discuss this decision with you, and we would welcome the opportunity to again make our case for increased state funding for health care.
In language the rest of us can understand- no money for us = no money for you. Webb continues, stating that the purpose of the VHHA PAC:
is to support current and future state leaders who take responsible and proactive positions regarding Virginia's health care system. (emphasis added)
Oooeee! that's some statesmanship right theyah! But let's be clear about the import of Webb's words. The letter is not only a denial of funding now - it also makes clear that VHHA will give money in the future only to those candidates who agree with their position. Which means to future opponents of the seven legislators brazen enough not to vote exactly how VHHA wants.
It's a threat.
This is the problem. Politicians can say that they are not influenced by big money donors, whether individuals or PACs, but when it comes right down to it, all pols need money to get elected and to stay elected. It doesn't matter how pretty they say it: if your donors say "no money unless you change your tune", you either change your tune or pack your bags, 'cause under the current system, you're done.
Maybe big money shouldn't be able to influence our elected officials by influencing their chances for re-election. Maybe the representatives in a representative democracy should be accountable to all the people, not just those with enough money to wield as a hammer come election time.
Some of the legislators got pretty miffed at the suggestions in VHHA's letter, and are talking about opening up a bribery investigation. Shoot. Nearly every single American could give you the results of that investigation before you even get started:
This is our system. This is what happens every day in letters and e-mails and phone calls and conversations in nearly every state in the union and certainly in Washington D.C. This is how regular folks end up making less and less and paying more and more for gas and health care and education and milk, while rich folks get richer and richer off our tax dollars. This is how people can sit at home on Election Day because they don't think their vote makes any difference. This is how we stopped believing in the power of we the people to make a change through our elected government.
This is what is wrong in America. This is what we gotta change.
Monday, June 21, 2004
Connecticut Governor John Rowland Resigns Amidst Federal and State Investigations and an Impeachment Inquiry in the Connecticut House
Less than a week after the Connecticut Supreme Court ordered Gov. Rowland to testify before the Connecticut House Impeachment Committee, his private attorney has declared that Rowland will announce his resignation tonight.
Rowland's tenure as governor has turned into a primer course on the effects of money in politics. The investigations into Rowland and his associates have got it all - state contracts, wealthy contributors, deregulation of a vital industry at the expense of the state and for the benefit of big companies and contributors, petty ethical violations, even gold. And of course, it wouldn't be a party without Ken Lay and Enron,who make an appearance to sign a couple contracts that end up costing the state of Connecticut over $200 million. Poof.
More to Come?
While many of the investigations into Rowland have focused on the ethical violations and quid pro quo corruption, the story that may have the largest impact is that of Enron, which spent huge sums of money all over the country to influence elections and policies. Rowland may end up being just one of the many examples of how Enron used big money to purchase policies and contracts favorable to its owners' interests.
Rowland's tenure as vice-chairman and then chairman of the Republican Governors Association (RGA) adds a level of complexity and intrigue to the investigations of big money and its influence on John Rowland's Administration. From December 1999 to October 2001, Enron gave over $1,000,000 to the RGA and Rowland combined.
Don't be surprised if other folks - governors, state legislators, congressmen, regulators - are suddenly fighting for their political lives as the investigations into Enron continue. The RGA gives out money all over the country. Chances are decent that Rowland wasn't the only guy to get a little help from his Enron friends. The AP is reporting today that federal prosecutors have stated that Ken Lay may be indicted by July 4. If that happens, and Lay decides to spill the beans about his deals with some of his old buddies, expect the trainwreck which is Enron to reach a state capitol near you.
*Keep an eye out this week for additional facts and analysis on Enron and Rowland from TheRestofUs.org.
Less than a week after the Connecticut Supreme Court ordered Gov. Rowland to testify before the Connecticut House Impeachment Committee, his private attorney has declared that Rowland will announce his resignation tonight.
Rowland's tenure as governor has turned into a primer course on the effects of money in politics. The investigations into Rowland and his associates have got it all - state contracts, wealthy contributors, deregulation of a vital industry at the expense of the state and for the benefit of big companies and contributors, petty ethical violations, even gold. And of course, it wouldn't be a party without Ken Lay and Enron,who make an appearance to sign a couple contracts that end up costing the state of Connecticut over $200 million. Poof.
More to Come?
While many of the investigations into Rowland have focused on the ethical violations and quid pro quo corruption, the story that may have the largest impact is that of Enron, which spent huge sums of money all over the country to influence elections and policies. Rowland may end up being just one of the many examples of how Enron used big money to purchase policies and contracts favorable to its owners' interests.
Rowland's tenure as vice-chairman and then chairman of the Republican Governors Association (RGA) adds a level of complexity and intrigue to the investigations of big money and its influence on John Rowland's Administration. From December 1999 to October 2001, Enron gave over $1,000,000 to the RGA and Rowland combined.
Don't be surprised if other folks - governors, state legislators, congressmen, regulators - are suddenly fighting for their political lives as the investigations into Enron continue. The RGA gives out money all over the country. Chances are decent that Rowland wasn't the only guy to get a little help from his Enron friends. The AP is reporting today that federal prosecutors have stated that Ken Lay may be indicted by July 4. If that happens, and Lay decides to spill the beans about his deals with some of his old buddies, expect the trainwreck which is Enron to reach a state capitol near you.
*Keep an eye out this week for additional facts and analysis on Enron and Rowland from TheRestofUs.org.
