Reed proposed faith-based Enron support

February 17, 2002 11:13 AM

Reed proposed faith-based Enron support Ralph Reed, former Christian Coalition leader and now corporate lobbyist and Georgia GOP chief, made a business offer to the Enron Corp. in October 2000. In a memo outlining the offer, he proposed mobilizing religious leaders and pro-family groups for a battle over electricity industry deregulation. The price? Reed suggested $380,000. Could any cynical comments made about this proposal possibly be harsh enough?
posted by raysmj (29 comments total)

>Could any cynical comments made about this proposal possibly be harsh enough?


No.
posted by swerdloff at 11:40 AM on February 17, 2002

Robert Novak attempts to trace the story from a rumor to a story in the NYTimes.

The great thing about this scandal, and the reason I'm still laughing like a hyena, is we get to see how our government actually works. It's like lifting up a rock and seeing whats crawling underneath.
posted by euphorb at 11:49 AM on February 17, 2002

I don't see the big deal. Obviously it was God's will to deregulate the electricity industry for Enron's benefit. Why else would Ralph Reed get involved???
posted by Dirjy at 12:09 PM on February 17, 2002

Cynical? harsh? isn't it the official goal of the christian right to do evil? (and get paid for it)
posted by Orik at 1:10 PM on February 17, 2002

The really interesting question is how this story ended up on the front page of the Post two weeks after Novak blew so many holes in it.
posted by aaron at 1:16 PM on February 17, 2002

isn't it the official goal of the christian right to do evil? (and get paid for it)

got any evidence to back up that baiting statement?

This memo is certainly appalling, but then anything related to lobbying is. Everyone is aware this is pretty standard operating procedures (faking letters to the editor, fax blasting, getting groups to take on your agenda) for corporate and political lobbying right?

how this story ended up on the front page of the Post two weeks after Novak blew so many holes in it.

any links to aformentioned article? I didn't see it.
posted by mathowie at 1:17 PM on February 17, 2002

ah, I see it linked above, forget it.
posted by mathowie at 1:19 PM on February 17, 2002

After reading novak's column, I still don't see how this story is refuted, in that it pertains to an actual memo the post received a hard copy of. I don't see the post as trying to connect this to Bush directly, it makes enron, reed, and corporate lobbying look intertwined and disgusting.
posted by mathowie at 1:26 PM on February 17, 2002

mathowie: It's standard operating procedure, except for the bit about bringing in religious figures to assist in the effort. Even Max Weber, who understood the connection between religion and economies quite well, would find this case to amazingly, almost inhumanly, crass.
posted by raysmj at 1:32 PM on February 17, 2002

" ... This memo is certainly appalling, but then anything related to lobbying is. Everyone is aware this is pretty standard operating procedures (faking letters to the editor, fax blasting, getting groups to take on your agenda) for corporate and political lobbying right?..."

Sure have to second that motion. The story, of course, is not about something that happened - it is about a pitch Reed was making to Enron. It certainly doesn't say this was actually accepted - i.e., that Enron hired the firm.

The relationship between big companies and members of the legislative and executive branches is hardly news. It is a bit odd, however, that an enormous stink is being raised about Enron, and very little has even been mentioned here about Global Crossing.

Could it be because it is the democrats that are the culprits in that one?
posted by MidasMulligan at 1:46 PM on February 17, 2002

Midas, with all due respect, Global Crossing has been discussed here, as well as the point that "mostly democrats were culprits."

As for why a bigger stink is raised about Enron, I think the presidential ties are what everyone wants to see clearly, if there were any. If global xing gave loads of money to Bush, or if we were currently living under President Gore, I'm sure global xing would be a much bigger story. Enron also cheated all its employees out of retirement, which every american worker lives in fear of.
posted by mathowie at 2:07 PM on February 17, 2002

The idea that religious groups can be bought as corporate lobbyists does seem especially sordid at a time when the President is promoting faith-based initiatives as the way to alleviate society's ills.
posted by liam at 2:08 PM on February 17, 2002

" ... Midas, with all due respect, Global Crossing has been discussed here, as well as the point that "mostly democrats were culprits." ...

I do remember that thread - but I believe that is almost the only one (if not the only one), as opposed to probably at least 5 or 10 about Enron - and most of the discussion in it actually seemed to be more about how Republicans might be using Global Crossing to deflect attention away from Enron (I remember the profound irony of using that argument in a thread to deflect attention from the details of Global Crossing giving me a big grin).
posted by MidasMulligan at 2:43 PM on February 17, 2002

"In public policy," he wrote, "it matters less who has the best arguments and more who gets heard -- and by whom."

Oh, this beautiful, crystallized, unfiltered gem...thank you, Ralph, for encapsulating everything wrong with the world into one sentence. Thank you.
posted by solistrato at 3:01 PM on February 17, 2002

Could it be because it is the democrats that are the culprits in that one?

can someone explain to me why people keep saying this? everything i have seen about global crossing has had the breakdown to be about 50/50 dems and repubs as to who was taking doinations. so how does this make democrats the culprits? sounds to me like both groups are equally at fault.
posted by saralovering at 3:10 PM on February 17, 2002

I think the "democrats are the culprits" argument WRT Global Crossing, isn't about campaign donations so much as about some direct connections between them and the highest ranks of the Democratic Party, and the obvious questions those connections would raise: McAuliffe has or had some deal with them, the CEO is a Friend of Bill (he even was at Clinton's Super Bowl party just a couple weeks ago), William Cohen was on their board, etc. Plus there's something going on about the Chinese government gobbling up GC's fiber-optic lines now that they've gone Chapter 11; anything linking Clinton's people and the Chinese is automatically raises major suspicions on the right.

(I'm taking no position on the matter here. I haven't been following GC close enough; I had to look up all the tidbits I just noted above. Just trying to say where I think the allegations are coming from.)
posted by aaron at 3:46 PM on February 17, 2002

I haven't read much about Global Crossing in the Wall Street Journal or the National Review, nor have I seen much about it on Fox News. So I don't think it's just Democrats or liberals who don't think it's much of a story.

I've seen lots of Enron coverage there, though. But I agree with the folks who think this is a non-story, except insofar as it reflects on Ralph Reed's bizarre sleaziness, which, given that he's a lobbyist, should be no surprise to anyone.

I mean, think about it, folks. "Lobbyist Proposes Stupid, Sleazy Idea; No Response from Company" is not much of a story.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:17 PM on February 17, 2002

Did any Democrats, or rather anyone who was was a leader in the party, ever consider organizing a lobbying effort for legislation favorable to Global Crossing, an effort in which the charisma of the Christian messiah would be utilized in some fashion (direct or indirect)? I don't think so. Even taking the GC support of Democrats as a given, what does it have to do with the Reed story?
posted by raysmj at 4:18 PM on February 17, 2002

Sidhedevil: The story doesn't say that Enron turned Reed down. It doesn't say what he did or did not do, only that the relationship between Reed's firm and Enron ended in October 2001, a full year after the memo.
posted by raysmj at 4:23 PM on February 17, 2002

Ray, what is it about the Christian angle that bothers you? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at; I mean, Christians can vote too. I don't see where that particular part of the idea (which IS pretty oily overall, as are most lobbyists' ideas) is the problem; people attempt to influence particular groups of voters all the time: blacks, union members, NASCAR enthusiasts, you name it.
posted by aaron at 4:25 PM on February 17, 2002

Aaron: C'mon, already. Christianity is not NASCAR or a labor union, unless you look at religion solely in instrumental terms.
posted by raysmj at 4:35 PM on February 17, 2002

I presume it bothers people because it seems that Reed was trying to serve God and Mammon at the same time.
posted by thomas j wise at 4:44 PM on February 17, 2002

Jesus should do something about this!
posted by Kodel at 5:30 PM on February 17, 2002

Raysmj, I didn't say Enron had turned Reed down; nobody seems to have uncovered a response to this memo, though. If I were a Post editor, I might have encouraged the reporter to wait until there was more of a story.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:36 PM on February 17, 2002

Along the cynical comment category, I think Ralph Reed could take a few lessons from the extortion racket Jesse Jackson runs.
posted by Real9 at 6:48 PM on February 17, 2002

Real9: I seldom agree with you, but do a bit here. Your comments make me think of Jesse's opportunistic appearances with Mike Milken in he 1980s. Milken used him at a time of crisis for PR purposes, to show that he was into civil rights and philanthropy for inner city children, etc. (He actually has done good in this area since, but at the time had never shown any interest in civil rights whatsoever.) Jesse, selling off his reputation and clergy status to the highest bidder, was more than willing to help out, as it were. Reed's still more into preaching to all of us about values, though - or at least was, and stays close to those who do.
posted by raysmj at 7:03 PM on February 17, 2002

I thought it was kosher around Metafilter to decry the Bush administration for using the term "axis of evil" and "evildoers" to describe people developing weapons of mass destruction and finding ways to destroy masses of people without them.

Nevertheless, Orik gets away with labeling "evil" as something the Christian Right does, although here "evil" happens to be defined as, well, lobbying as usual in Washington.

Matt Welch has commented on the hypocrisy. Too many rabble-rousers on the left do their rabble rousing by loosely applying the word evil, then object when it's used with a rather stricter definition.
posted by dhartung at 1:35 AM on February 18, 2002

Hmmm...let me see what I can think of in 20 seconds...

Destroying the lives of young women by steering them away from contraceptives and abortion.

Discriminating against people because of their sexual preferences.

Trying to make our children as smart as apes.


Jerry Fallwel.
posted by Orik at 7:04 AM on February 18, 2002

what is it about the Christian angle that bothers you? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at

Aaron, you didn't address the question to me but let me throw in. I have absolutely no problem with interest groups, Christian, Latino, GayLesBiTrans, whatever, getting together and pushing their agenda. That's politics. What bothers me about this is that Ralph Reed seemed to be prepared to use his standing among grassroots Christian orgs. to aid Enron's fight for privatization, something that seems to me to be unrelated to Christianity (I don't think the Bible says anything about it). A lot of the people who follow him don't know much about the situation, and I think would have supported privatization solely because he was telling them to. Then they would have scratched their heads as prices went up and service went down.

Again, I have no problem with people of faith trying to work in the system, I think it makes for a healthier democracy. But Reed's methods over the years have cheapened religion immeasurably.
posted by Ty Webb at 8:59 AM on February 18, 2002