Washingtonpost.com: Live Online -- OnPolitics "Free Media"

President Bush's chief of staff was told last fall of Enron Corp.'s request for government help before the giant energy company collapsed in the largest bankruptcy case ever in the United States. Read the full story "Bush Aide Was Told of Enron's Plea" (Post, Jan. 14, 2002).

Larry Noble, Executive Director and General Counsel at the Center for Responsive Politics, was online to discuss the Enron controversy and the company's political ties.

The Washington, D.C. based Center for Responsive Politics is a non-profit, non-partisan research group that "tracks money in politics, and its effect on elections and public policy."

A transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Larry Noble: I am pleased to be here to answer your questions.

Cherry Hill, N.J.: Larry,

It appears even though the Bush administration did nothing illegal. My concern is that Enron had a huge influence not only on deregulation of energy on Texas, but on the Bush Energy policy. Why hasn't more been said about that?

Larry Noble: That is a very good point. There is little doubt that Enron and Kenneth Lay had input into the Bush energy policy. In fact Ken Lay was part of the energy taskforce headed by the Vice President. I think this is the real campaign finance issue behind Enron's story -- that is the influence Enron had before the bankruptcy through its political contributions and its lobbying.

I think it is important that the press and Congress focus on this part of the story as well as the Enron bankruptcy.

Alexandria, Va.: I am afraid of al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad, not Enron. Unless there is real bribery here with a quid pro quo and everything why not forget about it?

Larry Noble: Because what we are talking about is how policy is made in this country and while Al Quada and the Events Sept. 11 are extremely important it is also extremely important that we do not loose site of the fact that the impact companies have on policy effects us every day. In the Enron case there are several levels of concern. First is how the bankruptcy impacted the lives of thousands of Enron workers and investors and secondly, how Enron and companies like Enron have impacted our energy policy. These issues are all interconnected and I believe are even interconnected by our foreign policy. I don't think that the focus on the events of Sept. 11 should in any way diminish our concern for how our government works on a day to day basis.

New York City, N.Y.: Why are the politics of this case just coming out now? Its never been a secret that the Bush team has close ties with Enron & the company has been struggling for several months?

Larry Noble: The reason it is coming out now is because of Enron's bankruptcy. This is the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history and that has brought the spotlight to Enron. From a campaign finance perspective Enron is not one of the top corporate players, it is in the top 50 but not in the top 10. So what you see here is the bankruptcy spotlight is also shedding light on the campaign finance issues. You can be sure that the type of political involvement we now see with Enron you will see with numerous other corporations every day. They are making political contributions to buy themselves access and political friends. It is only when you have a crisis like the Enron bankruptcy that people will focus on all those political ties. The other reason it is now being focused on is the friendship between the President and Ken Lay. Also I suspect that the further we move away from Sept. 11 the more you will see other news come to the forefront. I think the Enron story was partly buried by the events of Sept. 11, at least for a while. But the real impetuous for the story was the early December declaration of bankruptcy by Enron. Since then it has been pretty much front page news.

Bethesda, Md.: The Cheney and Enron connection will likely be talked about since Enron's chief was in charge of designing the Bush administration energy policy.

Larry Noble: You are right. There has been a focus, even before the bankrupsy, on the Vice President's energy task force. The task force did its work in secret and has refused to release information on who was part of the task force and what they did. The General Accounting Office (GAO), an arm of Congress, has been demanding documents from the task force but so far the administration has refused to turn them over. GAO is reportedly considering filing suit to get the documents. This is an important issue that exists independently of the Enron bankruptcy. The question here is what influence did the energy industry and Enron in particular have on our energy policy. Until the administration releases information about the task force we won't really know.

Mendon, Mich.: The phone calls to Treasury Secretary O'Neill and others in administration are explained as efforts to warn them of possible disruptions in markets because of the difficulties of Enron -- a kind of high minded purpose.
Doesn't this explanation ring rather hollow since this same noble sentiment was entirely missing with respect to Enron's own rand and file employees, none of whom would have had their calls answered by these same officials?

Larry Noble: I think that it is a very good question. The way it is being portrayed is hat Enron wanted to give the administration a heads up about its financial problems. One would also think that is also owed the same to its employees. It is not totally clear what the exact purpose of the phone calls to the Sec. Of Commerce and the Sec. Of Treasury was. It looks like Enron was attempting to get some help in avoiding bankruptcy but I don't think that anyone has been totally clear about what happened or what was asked for. I do think that one of the things that will be examined in the investigations to come is what duty Enron owed its investors and employees to notify them of the companies financial problems as well as what the administration's responsibilities were once it received information regarding Enron's financial situation. It does not appear that Enron's first concern was its employees and their investments.

Indianapolis, Ind.: Has the Center for Responsive Politics ever considered providing some sort of time line to highlight campaign donations from groups with well established political positions and the resulting legislation?

I think people would be interested to hear the names of the lobbyist, who they are meeting with combined with donations and the timing legislation is presented. I hope I'm making sense.

Larry Noble: We publish a great deal of information about campaign information and lobbyists on our Web site. You can search our Web site by industry, by candidate and by issue to see who is giving and who is getting. We also do "alerts" on specific issues as they came up where we try to report on who is behind the issue. Frankly we would love to do more in depth research and reporting that would tie campaign contributions, lobbying and votes together, however, as with many nonprofit organizations, funding is always an issue with us. Nevertheless, we are actively looking at doing such a project.

Kamloops, Canada: Could the White House be resposible for having not telling the shareholders of enrons immenent collapse? Aren't they at fault for with holding this information? or is that not an obligation of the White House?

Larry Noble: That is a very difficult question. There are some who say that the White House had an obligation to tell the public about the impending collapse of Enron. Had they done so it probably would have forced the stock down even earlier. There are others who say that the administration handled it properly by not doing anything. This of course left thousands of employees and investors in the cold. I am sure this is one of the issues that Congress will be looking at during the investigation. I hope for the future we can get some consensus on what the administration is obligated to do when it in effect has inside information about a failing business.

Alexandria, Va.: My question is, what consequences are there for an accounting firm like Andersen that does shoddy work? Is this against the law? Or are there tons of loopholees these guys can use to disclaim responsibility - like "they lied to me"? But isn't it supposedly the job of independent accounting firms to ask the right questions and do the analysis that can identify lies?

Larry Noble: Many people think that Arthur Anderson will be one of the major casualties of the Enron debacle. Not only are there valid questions about the audit that Arthur Anderson did, but there are also very serious questions about its destruction of documents. You can be sure that this will be a major focus of both the Congressional and criminal investigations. Interestingly there have been attempts in the recent past to regulate firms such as Arthur Anderson who are involved in both auditing and consulting work because of the potential conflict between being and independent auditor and trying to sell your consulting services to your client. Lobbying by firms such as Arthur Anderson derailed earlier attempts to increase regulations. I expect that we will see renewed efforts to bring more regulations to this field.

Washington, D.C.: Will you at least admit the bipartisan nature of Enron's contributions and connections? Does it make any difference to you that Sen. Schumer and Reps. Bentsen, Frost, and Jackson Lee, all senior Dems, received substantial contributions? And that Robert Rubin lobbied for Enron?

Larry Noble: Absolutely. This is clearly a bipartisan issue. Enron, like most business, gave to both Democrats and Republicans, looking for political influence wherever it could find it. Right now, about 70 of the sitting Senators have received contributions from Enron over the years and about 188 members of the House have been recipients of Enron contributions. This list includes both Democrats and Republicans. About 73 percent of Enron's contributions went to Republicans, but the Democrats are clearly tainted by the same money.

This is what is going to make the congressional investigations so interesting. While the Democrats will try to score political points by tarring the Republicans with Enron money, they are very aware that the Democrats also benefited from Enron's contributions.

Washington, D.C.: Why haven't we heard any clarifying comments from Dick Cheney?

Larry Noble: That is also a good question. So far all we have heard from the Vice President regarding the Energy Task Force is that he doesn't have to make information about the Task Force public. One of the problems any administration faces in a controversy like this is the impression that they are hiding something. Assuming the administration did nothing wrong they are not served well by letting information come out in small bits and pieces. This is one of the lessons the Clinton administration learned. Often more damage is done by how an administration handles a controversy then by the underlying controversy itself.

Indianapolis, Ind.: Do you think Enron's financial problems were of such a magnitude that by the time Ken Lay was reaching out for help his problems were simply too much of a "hot potato" for any politician?

I think alot of politicians are giving themselves way too much credit for side-stepping Ken Lay's request.

Larry Noble: Yes. While political contributions and political friendship can buy you access and a favorable ear there is a point you reach when things have gotten so bad that no one will try to help you. I think this is what happened with Enron. By the time Enron sought political intervention people were reluctant to help them because they did not want to be brought down by Enron. What you are seeing now on the part of both Republicans and Democrats is a real attempt to distance themselves from Enron. Many gong as far as trying to return contributions. Right now Enron does not have a lot of friends in Washington and it is not surprising that looking at the potential for the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history that members of the administration and people on the Hill were not eager to help Enron.

San Diego, Calif.: How involved was Enron in the California energy crisis?

Larry Noble: Enron apparently lobbied the administration to stay out of the California energy crisis. If you remember back to those days there were many people in California and around the country that believed the federal government should come in and help the state. Enron had been a major proponent of deregulation because it benefited its business. It has been reported that because of lobbying, political contributions and general philosophy that the Bush administration said that it would not intervene. This is seen as hurting many in California but helping Enron and other energy companies. This is the type of support that political contributions and lobbying buy a company.

Larry Noble: I want to thank everyone for their insightful questions and I urge the readers to keep on top of these issues, find out where their elective representatives receive contributions and to use that to become actively involved in their government. Lastly I would like to thank washingtonpost.com for the opportunity to be with you.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

Health Talk: "A Beautiful Mind" and Schizophrenia at 2 p.m. EST
Live Online Special Coverage: America At War

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.