Friday, August 30, 2002
Nice going!
The steel tariffs imposed by the Bush Administration have brought about the largest sanction in the history of trade.
From today's New York Times:
BRUSSELS, Aug. 30 — The World Trade Organization gave the go-ahead to the European Union today to impose sanctions on United States products worth just over $4 billion in retaliation for a tax break for United States exporters that the Europeans and the trade group has branded as illegal.
The $4 billion sanctions award is more than 10 times the size of any other such award ever offered by the W.T.O. If the union did impose the sanctions, which would take the form of 100 percent duties on imports from the United States, it would make a noticeable dent in trans-Atlantic trade flows.
The European Union is fighting the imposition of tariffs on imported steel of up to 30 percent imposed by the Bush Administration last March. It has set up a dispute panel at the W.T.O. to examine the tariffs, and is threatening to impose sanctions on United States products if the tariffs are not scrapped.
So, good for the steel industry and bad for everyone else (so bad that the Bush Administration is backing away from the tariffs). But why did they do it in the first place? Especially since Bush campaigned on a "free trade" (i.e., no tariff) platform? Could these numbers, from the Center for Responsive Politics have something to do with it?
Steel Production:
Long-Term Contribution Trends
Election Cycle 2002 (so far)
Total Contributions $1,277,271
Donations to Democrats $459,752
Donations to Republicans $816,609
% to Dems 36%
% to Repubs 64%
Election Cycle 2000
Total Contributions $2,786,587
Donations to Democrats $695,301
Donations to Republicans $2,083,922
% to Dems 25%
% to Repubs 75%
Election Cycle 1998
Total Contributions $1,555,293
Donations to Democrats $586,863
Donations to Republicans $967,001
% to Dems 38%
% to Repubs 62%
Oh, and by the way--guess who was the #1 recipient of campaign donations during the campaign of 2000:
1 Bush, George W (R) Pres $152,768
The steel tariffs imposed by the Bush Administration have brought about the largest sanction in the history of trade.
From today's New York Times:
BRUSSELS, Aug. 30 — The World Trade Organization gave the go-ahead to the European Union today to impose sanctions on United States products worth just over $4 billion in retaliation for a tax break for United States exporters that the Europeans and the trade group has branded as illegal.
The $4 billion sanctions award is more than 10 times the size of any other such award ever offered by the W.T.O. If the union did impose the sanctions, which would take the form of 100 percent duties on imports from the United States, it would make a noticeable dent in trans-Atlantic trade flows.
The European Union is fighting the imposition of tariffs on imported steel of up to 30 percent imposed by the Bush Administration last March. It has set up a dispute panel at the W.T.O. to examine the tariffs, and is threatening to impose sanctions on United States products if the tariffs are not scrapped.
So, good for the steel industry and bad for everyone else (so bad that the Bush Administration is backing away from the tariffs). But why did they do it in the first place? Especially since Bush campaigned on a "free trade" (i.e., no tariff) platform? Could these numbers, from the Center for Responsive Politics have something to do with it?
Steel Production:
Long-Term Contribution Trends
Election Cycle 2002 (so far)
Total Contributions $1,277,271
Donations to Democrats $459,752
Donations to Republicans $816,609
% to Dems 36%
% to Repubs 64%
Election Cycle 2000
Total Contributions $2,786,587
Donations to Democrats $695,301
Donations to Republicans $2,083,922
% to Dems 25%
% to Repubs 75%
Election Cycle 1998
Total Contributions $1,555,293
Donations to Democrats $586,863
Donations to Republicans $967,001
% to Dems 38%
% to Repubs 62%
Oh, and by the way--guess who was the #1 recipient of campaign donations during the campaign of 2000:
1 Bush, George W (R) Pres $152,768
Friday, August 23, 2002
Citigroup:
From today's New York Times:
Citigroup was under the microscope after a newspaper report that New York State's attorney general has widened his probe of Citigroup's brokerage unit.
The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter, said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is looking into a lucrative financing deal and what role Citigroup Chief Executive Sanford Weill might have played.
Spitzer is investigating whether Weill might have pressured Jack Grubman, then a telecommunications analyst at Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney unit, into raising his rating on AT&T Corp. in order to win a spot in underwriting a large stock offering for AT&T's wireless business.
Citigroup's shares fell 97 cents to $34.21
The Center for Responsive Politics--which gets its figures directly from the Federal Election Commision--lists four seperate Political Action Committess for Citigroup. Each has up to three election cycles listed, so I had to crunch some numbers to get their total PAC giving. From 1998 to the present it totalled $1,719,093. Of that, $947,541 --just over 55%--went to Republicans.
Citigroup was not so equitable with its soft money donations. From 2001-2002 (so far) they've given $1,031,213. Of that, $680,713, or 66%, went to Republican groups, inlcuding an $85,000 donation to something called "The 2001 President's Dinner". Must have been a heck of a dinner.
By the way, Citigroup is listed as a donor under the Finance/Real Estate group. They were the second overall donor in this sector, giving $2,071,531 (58% of it to Republicans). This sector's number one ranked benficiary in the 2000 election cycle?
Bush, George W (R) Pres $16,028,084
From today's New York Times:
Citigroup was under the microscope after a newspaper report that New York State's attorney general has widened his probe of Citigroup's brokerage unit.
The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter, said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is looking into a lucrative financing deal and what role Citigroup Chief Executive Sanford Weill might have played.
Spitzer is investigating whether Weill might have pressured Jack Grubman, then a telecommunications analyst at Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney unit, into raising his rating on AT&T Corp. in order to win a spot in underwriting a large stock offering for AT&T's wireless business.
Citigroup's shares fell 97 cents to $34.21
The Center for Responsive Politics--which gets its figures directly from the Federal Election Commision--lists four seperate Political Action Committess for Citigroup. Each has up to three election cycles listed, so I had to crunch some numbers to get their total PAC giving. From 1998 to the present it totalled $1,719,093. Of that, $947,541 --just over 55%--went to Republicans.
Citigroup was not so equitable with its soft money donations. From 2001-2002 (so far) they've given $1,031,213. Of that, $680,713, or 66%, went to Republican groups, inlcuding an $85,000 donation to something called "The 2001 President's Dinner". Must have been a heck of a dinner.
By the way, Citigroup is listed as a donor under the Finance/Real Estate group. They were the second overall donor in this sector, giving $2,071,531 (58% of it to Republicans). This sector's number one ranked benficiary in the 2000 election cycle?
Bush, George W (R) Pres $16,028,084
Friday, August 09, 2002
www.201k.com is on vacation. Back 8/21/02.
Don't let them fool you.
Don't let them fool you.
Tuesday, August 06, 2002
Tyco
Yet another company being investigated for various questionable financial practices that has given overwhelmingly to the Republican party. First, an excerpt from an ASSOCIATED PRESS story from today's New York Times:
Expert observers have said at least three current board members have potential conflicts of interest serious enough to raise questions about the objectivity of an internal investigation into Tyco's finances.
Meanwhile, the company's accounting practices are being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and former chief executive Dennis Kozlowski resigned in June after he was indicted on sales tax evasion charges. Since then, the company has been investigating questionable financial transactions involving other top executives.
The company, which is based in Bermuda but run from Exeter, has laid off thousands of workers and its stock has declined about 80 percent this year.
If you're counting, that's 1. conflict of interest in the board of directors; 2. S.E.C. investigation for "questionable financial transactions", 3. "based in Bermuda but run from Exeter". That stock decline again is 80%. Now let's look at some of Tyco's political donations from 1998-the present, from the Center for Responsive Politics:
Tyco Electronics
2000 PAC Summary Data
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates $17,750 - 7% to Democrats, 93% to Republicans
1998 PAC Summary Data
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates $80,500 - 5% to Democrats, 95% to Republicans
Tyco's PAC has made no contributions in the 2002 election cycle.
As for "soft money" donated in the name of Tyco, I had to do the math myself, since the giving was done under several names:
TYCO ELECTRONICS HARRISBURG, PA
TYCO INT'L WASHINGTON, DC
TYCO INT'L U S A INC BOCA RATON, FL
TYCO INTERNATIONALWASHINGTON, DC
TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD EXETER, NH
TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD BOCA RATON, FL
TYCO INTERNATIONAL US INC WASHINGTON, DC
TYCO WORLDWIDE SERVICES INC WASHINGTON, DC
Total given, $611,350
Total given to Republicans: $491,350
Total given to Democrats: $120,000
Republican Recipients:
National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)
Republican National Committee (RNC) / Repub National State Elections Cmte
2000 Republican H/S Dinner Trust
1999 Republican S/H Dinner Trust
2001 President's Dinner
National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC)
Democratic Recipients:
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)
Democratic National Committee (DNC)
Yet another company being investigated for various questionable financial practices that has given overwhelmingly to the Republican party. First, an excerpt from an ASSOCIATED PRESS story from today's New York Times:
Expert observers have said at least three current board members have potential conflicts of interest serious enough to raise questions about the objectivity of an internal investigation into Tyco's finances.
Meanwhile, the company's accounting practices are being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and former chief executive Dennis Kozlowski resigned in June after he was indicted on sales tax evasion charges. Since then, the company has been investigating questionable financial transactions involving other top executives.
The company, which is based in Bermuda but run from Exeter, has laid off thousands of workers and its stock has declined about 80 percent this year.
If you're counting, that's 1. conflict of interest in the board of directors; 2. S.E.C. investigation for "questionable financial transactions", 3. "based in Bermuda but run from Exeter". That stock decline again is 80%. Now let's look at some of Tyco's political donations from 1998-the present, from the Center for Responsive Politics:
Tyco Electronics
2000 PAC Summary Data
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates $17,750 - 7% to Democrats, 93% to Republicans
1998 PAC Summary Data
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates $80,500 - 5% to Democrats, 95% to Republicans
Tyco's PAC has made no contributions in the 2002 election cycle.
As for "soft money" donated in the name of Tyco, I had to do the math myself, since the giving was done under several names:
TYCO ELECTRONICS HARRISBURG, PA
TYCO INT'L WASHINGTON, DC
TYCO INT'L U S A INC BOCA RATON, FL
TYCO INTERNATIONALWASHINGTON, DC
TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD EXETER, NH
TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD BOCA RATON, FL
TYCO INTERNATIONAL US INC WASHINGTON, DC
TYCO WORLDWIDE SERVICES INC WASHINGTON, DC
Total given, $611,350
Total given to Republicans: $491,350
Total given to Democrats: $120,000
Republican Recipients:
National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)
Republican National Committee (RNC) / Repub National State Elections Cmte
2000 Republican H/S Dinner Trust
1999 Republican S/H Dinner Trust
2001 President's Dinner
National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC)
Democratic Recipients:
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)
Democratic National Committee (DNC)
Monday, August 05, 2002
The Friendly Skies
Finally, 19 months after the recount of the 2000 Presidential Election, The Bush campaign recount committee has released its financial records. According to a story in Friday's Bloomberg, the campaign used the corporate jets of--among others--four companies that are now either bankrupt, under investigation by the SEC, or both: Enron, Halliburton, Reliant Energy, and Phar-Mor Inc.
It has not been easy getting the Bush recount committee to release its financials, though the information is required by law. They have contested the law since the end of the recount, and were given an extension while they fought to keep their records secret. Finally, on July 15, they complied.
The Gore recount committee, which used no corporate jets and was outspent 4-1 by the Bush committee, filed their financials in accordance with the original IRS rule.
Excerpts from the Bloomberg story:
Washington, Aug. 2 (Bloomberg) -- George W. Bush's election 2000 recount committee used corporate jets owned by 10 companies, including three now under federal investigation, to ferry lawyers and campaign workers to Florida and elsewhere, according to Internal Revenue Service records and a committee lawyer.
Enron Corp., Halliburton Co. and Reliant Energy Inc. -- three companies whose finances are being examined by U.S. regulators -- were among the corporations reimbursed for the use of their corporate jets by the Bush committee during the 36-day recount that gave Republican Bush Florida's 25 electoral votes and the presidency.
The recount committee records, released 19 months after the recount battle, come as the Bush administration is fending off Democratic charges that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have put the interests of their corporate supporters ahead of the public.
The Bush filings were made under an extended deadline granted by the IRS. Democrat Gore's recount committee's contributions and expenditures were reported in line with the IRS's original deadlines. Gore's filings don't show use of corporate jets.
The Bush campaign initially said federal law didn't require disclosures by recount committees and released the names of contributors, not expenditures. While still denying any legal obligation, Bush campaign officials filed to the IRS hundreds of pages on expenditures July 15. The IRS posted the filing on its Web site last weekend.
Enron filed for bankruptcy protection last year amid disclosures that the Houston-based energy trader hid $1 billion in losses and was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Enron's then-Chairman Kenneth Lay was a leading contributor to Bush's political career. Lay and his wife donated $10,000 to the recount fund.
Halliburton, the second-largest oilfield services firm, is under SEC investigation for allegedly accelerating booking of revenue from construction work, an accounting change started in 1998 when Cheney was chairman and CEO.
Reliant Resources Inc., a Houston-based energy trader that is 83 percent owned by Reliant Energy, is under investigation by the SEC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for "round-trip" trades that inflated revenue and contributed to a restatement of last year's earnings.
Finally, 19 months after the recount of the 2000 Presidential Election, The Bush campaign recount committee has released its financial records. According to a story in Friday's Bloomberg, the campaign used the corporate jets of--among others--four companies that are now either bankrupt, under investigation by the SEC, or both: Enron, Halliburton, Reliant Energy, and Phar-Mor Inc.
It has not been easy getting the Bush recount committee to release its financials, though the information is required by law. They have contested the law since the end of the recount, and were given an extension while they fought to keep their records secret. Finally, on July 15, they complied.
The Gore recount committee, which used no corporate jets and was outspent 4-1 by the Bush committee, filed their financials in accordance with the original IRS rule.
Excerpts from the Bloomberg story:
Washington, Aug. 2 (Bloomberg) -- George W. Bush's election 2000 recount committee used corporate jets owned by 10 companies, including three now under federal investigation, to ferry lawyers and campaign workers to Florida and elsewhere, according to Internal Revenue Service records and a committee lawyer.
Enron Corp., Halliburton Co. and Reliant Energy Inc. -- three companies whose finances are being examined by U.S. regulators -- were among the corporations reimbursed for the use of their corporate jets by the Bush committee during the 36-day recount that gave Republican Bush Florida's 25 electoral votes and the presidency.
The recount committee records, released 19 months after the recount battle, come as the Bush administration is fending off Democratic charges that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have put the interests of their corporate supporters ahead of the public.
The Bush filings were made under an extended deadline granted by the IRS. Democrat Gore's recount committee's contributions and expenditures were reported in line with the IRS's original deadlines. Gore's filings don't show use of corporate jets.
The Bush campaign initially said federal law didn't require disclosures by recount committees and released the names of contributors, not expenditures. While still denying any legal obligation, Bush campaign officials filed to the IRS hundreds of pages on expenditures July 15. The IRS posted the filing on its Web site last weekend.
Enron filed for bankruptcy protection last year amid disclosures that the Houston-based energy trader hid $1 billion in losses and was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Enron's then-Chairman Kenneth Lay was a leading contributor to Bush's political career. Lay and his wife donated $10,000 to the recount fund.
Halliburton, the second-largest oilfield services firm, is under SEC investigation for allegedly accelerating booking of revenue from construction work, an accounting change started in 1998 when Cheney was chairman and CEO.
Reliant Resources Inc., a Houston-based energy trader that is 83 percent owned by Reliant Energy, is under investigation by the SEC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for "round-trip" trades that inflated revenue and contributed to a restatement of last year's earnings.
And then there was Dynegy
Todays New York Times details the allegations of a former senior exec at the company that he was asked to go along with manipulative accounting:
HOUSTON, Aug. 4 — A former senior executive at the Dynegy Corporation says in a lawsuit that Dynegy fired him last year after he refused to go along with a plan to manipulate the company's profits and losses in the summer of 2000.
Mr. Farnsworth, who was the controller and chief accounting officer at Dynegy from 1997 to early 2001, says in the suit that he was pressured to alter the company's accounting standards so as to hide energy trading losses and bolster profits.
In the suit, Mr. Farnsworth says that top executives at Dynegy asked him to conspire to manipulate the company's results so as to meet profit forecasts and please investors.
Shares of Dynegy, which peaked at $47.50 last November, closed at $2.12 on Friday.
Wow. That's not so good for shareholders or employees. Let's see which politicians Dynegy has been generously giving to for the last two election cycles (as always, from the Center for Responsive Politics):
Oil & Gas:
Top Contributors
Election cycle: 2000
# 20 Dynegy Inc $376,800 18% to Democrats 82% to Republicans.
Election cycle: 2002
# 16 Dynegy Inc $157,432 35% to Democrats 65% to Republicans.
Overall, the Oil & Gas sector contributed $33,889,844 in the 2000 election cycle. Their number one receipient?
1 Bush, George W (R) $1,927,706
Todays New York Times details the allegations of a former senior exec at the company that he was asked to go along with manipulative accounting:
HOUSTON, Aug. 4 — A former senior executive at the Dynegy Corporation says in a lawsuit that Dynegy fired him last year after he refused to go along with a plan to manipulate the company's profits and losses in the summer of 2000.
Mr. Farnsworth, who was the controller and chief accounting officer at Dynegy from 1997 to early 2001, says in the suit that he was pressured to alter the company's accounting standards so as to hide energy trading losses and bolster profits.
In the suit, Mr. Farnsworth says that top executives at Dynegy asked him to conspire to manipulate the company's results so as to meet profit forecasts and please investors.
Shares of Dynegy, which peaked at $47.50 last November, closed at $2.12 on Friday.
Wow. That's not so good for shareholders or employees. Let's see which politicians Dynegy has been generously giving to for the last two election cycles (as always, from the Center for Responsive Politics):
Oil & Gas:
Top Contributors
Election cycle: 2000
# 20 Dynegy Inc $376,800 18% to Democrats 82% to Republicans.
Election cycle: 2002
# 16 Dynegy Inc $157,432 35% to Democrats 65% to Republicans.
Overall, the Oil & Gas sector contributed $33,889,844 in the 2000 election cycle. Their number one receipient?
1 Bush, George W (R) $1,927,706
Sunday, August 04, 2002
Spin City?
Many of you may have seen Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet The Press" this Sunday, August 4th, 2000, holding up a list of Senators who signed a letter in opposition to former SEC chairman Arthur Leavitt's Jun. 30, 2000 proposal to force more distance between auditors and consultants at the big accounting firms.
Russert (the transcript is not yet posted but I'll link to it when it is) read some names off the list--mostly Democrats--and then overtly suggested it was Democrats who blocked the measures.
Not exactly.
As today's issue of The Hill shows, of the 11 Senators who signed the letter, 8 were Republicans and 3 were Democrats.
The Republicans were: Sens. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Phil Gramm (R-Texas), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), former Sen. Rod Grams (R-Minn.), Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).
The Democrats were: Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), and Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.)
Leavitt's rule would have prevented the sort of accounting laxity that allowed Arthur Anderson and Enron to do what they did. And the accounting industry fought them tooth and nail--and won. Enron's employees and shareholders lost. As did Worldcom's and Tyco's and Rite Aid's and...
Over in the House: Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) "planned to sponsor the rider that would have frozen the funds the commission needed to implement its rule." In other words, the Republicans in the House were threatening to cut SEC funding if Leavitt went ahead with the rule changes.
Some Democrats--Rep. John Dingell (Mich.), Edolphus Towns, (D-N.Y.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.)--tried to prevent the House Republicans from hamstringing the SEC's efforts, but were unsuccessful.
These are the indisputable facts. But Tim Russert suggested to the whole nation that it was Democrats that did it.
Why?
(thanks to John H. for the tip on this one)
Many of you may have seen Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet The Press" this Sunday, August 4th, 2000, holding up a list of Senators who signed a letter in opposition to former SEC chairman Arthur Leavitt's Jun. 30, 2000 proposal to force more distance between auditors and consultants at the big accounting firms.
Russert (the transcript is not yet posted but I'll link to it when it is) read some names off the list--mostly Democrats--and then overtly suggested it was Democrats who blocked the measures.
Not exactly.
As today's issue of The Hill shows, of the 11 Senators who signed the letter, 8 were Republicans and 3 were Democrats.
The Republicans were: Sens. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Phil Gramm (R-Texas), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), former Sen. Rod Grams (R-Minn.), Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).
The Democrats were: Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), and Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.)
Leavitt's rule would have prevented the sort of accounting laxity that allowed Arthur Anderson and Enron to do what they did. And the accounting industry fought them tooth and nail--and won. Enron's employees and shareholders lost. As did Worldcom's and Tyco's and Rite Aid's and...
Over in the House: Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) "planned to sponsor the rider that would have frozen the funds the commission needed to implement its rule." In other words, the Republicans in the House were threatening to cut SEC funding if Leavitt went ahead with the rule changes.
Some Democrats--Rep. John Dingell (Mich.), Edolphus Towns, (D-N.Y.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.)--tried to prevent the House Republicans from hamstringing the SEC's efforts, but were unsuccessful.
These are the indisputable facts. But Tim Russert suggested to the whole nation that it was Democrats that did it.
Why?
(thanks to John H. for the tip on this one)
Uncommon Power Has Combined With Uncommon Greed
Former vice-President Al Gore has written a scathing and brilliant editorial in the New York Times:
But the way Gore kept changing his CLOTHES...
- For well over a year, the Bush administration has used its power in the wrong way. In 2000, I argued that the Bush-Cheney ticket was being bankrolled by "a new generation of special interests, power brokers who would want nothing better than a pliant president who would bend public policy to suit their purposes and profits." Some considered this warning anti-business. It was nothing of the sort. I believe now, as I said then, that "when powerful interests try to take advantage of the American people, it's often other businesses that are hurt in the process" -- most of all, smaller companies that play by the rules.
This view was not partisan. It was based on a plain reading of the history of Republican governance under Presidents Reagan and Bush. And every passing day demonstrates that it was merely the truth.
But the way Gore kept changing his CLOTHES...
Saturday, August 03, 2002
And then of course there's Enron
Here's what the Center for Responsive Politics has on Enron's political donations for election years 2000 and 2002:
Oil & Gas: Top Contributors
Election cycle 2000:
# 1 Enron Corp $2,377,698 - 28% to Democrats 72% to Republicans. (Hey, congrats--they came in first!)
Here's what the Center for Responsive Politics has on Enron's political donations for election years 2000 and 2002:
Oil & Gas: Top Contributors
Election cycle 2000:
# 1 Enron Corp $2,377,698 - 28% to Democrats 72% to Republicans. (Hey, congrats--they came in first!)
Election cycle 2002:
# 5 Enron Corp $514,225 - 29% to Democrats 71% to Republicans (Only #5. Well, going out of business must have hurt their lobbying efforts a bit.)
But these numbers tell only the beginning of the story. Obviously, Enron's political donations and connections are not news. But getting past the rhetoric of the news media and into the numbers themselves reveals a lot. Once again the Center for Responsive Politics has crunched the numbers:
Enron’s Contributions to George W. Bush, 1993-2001
To Bush’s 1994 and 1998 Texas Gubernatorial Campaigns $312,500
To Bush’s Presidential Campaign, 1999-2000 $113,800
To Bush-Cheney 2000 Recount Fund $10,500
To Bush-Cheney 2001 Inaugural Fund $300,000
Total $736,800
And there's also this:
Enron Contributions to the Bush-Cheney 2001 Inaugural Fund
Donor City State Organization Amount
Enron Corp Houston TX Enron Corp $100,000
Jeffrey Skilling Houston TX Enron Corp $100,000 (Remember him?)
Kenneth & Linda Lay Houston TX Enron Corp $100,000
But as we've heard, Enron also gave to Democrats. They gave Al Gore $13,750. Whew!
Is there a connection?
Can't help but notice how many of the companies now having legal troubles are
connected directly to powerful people in Washington. Case in point: Rite Aid.
Following is a quote from Joe Conason's "Notes on a Native Son", from Harper's Magazine, Feb, 2000:
"[George W. Bush's] Arbusto partners included...Rite Aid drugstores chairman Lewis Lehrman..."
And here's some information from the Center for Responsive Politics regarding Rite Aid's political contributions for election years 2000 and 2002:
Rite Aid Corp 2002 PAC Summary Data
2002 election (so far)
Total Receipts $267,016
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates - 16% to Democrats, 84% to Republicans
2000 election
Total Receipts$433,325
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates - 27% to Democrats, 73% to Republicans
And here's a New York Times article from June, 22, 2002 (you'll have to pay for the whole
article) on the indictments of current and former Rite Aid execs:
BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | June 22, 2002,
Saturday Ex-Rite Aid Officials Face U.S. Charges Of Financial Fraud
By KENNETH N. GILPIN (NYT)
Three former top executives and a current employee of the Rite Aid Corporation
were indicted yesterday in what regulators called a securities and accounting
fraud that led to a $1.6 billion restatement of earnings, the largest ever.
The criminal charges, filed by the United States attorney's office for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, follow a two-and-a-half-year investigation in concert
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Can't help but notice how many of the companies now having legal troubles are
connected directly to powerful people in Washington. Case in point: Rite Aid.
Following is a quote from Joe Conason's "Notes on a Native Son", from Harper's Magazine, Feb, 2000:
"[George W. Bush's] Arbusto partners included...Rite Aid drugstores chairman Lewis Lehrman..."
And here's some information from the Center for Responsive Politics regarding Rite Aid's political contributions for election years 2000 and 2002:
Rite Aid Corp 2002 PAC Summary Data
2002 election (so far)
Total Receipts $267,016
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates - 16% to Democrats, 84% to Republicans
2000 election
Total Receipts$433,325
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates - 27% to Democrats, 73% to Republicans
And here's a New York Times article from June, 22, 2002 (you'll have to pay for the whole
article) on the indictments of current and former Rite Aid execs:
BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK | June 22, 2002,
Saturday Ex-Rite Aid Officials Face U.S. Charges Of Financial Fraud
By KENNETH N. GILPIN (NYT)
Three former top executives and a current employee of the Rite Aid Corporation
were indicted yesterday in what regulators called a securities and accounting
fraud that led to a $1.6 billion restatement of earnings, the largest ever.
The criminal charges, filed by the United States attorney's office for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, follow a two-and-a-half-year investigation in concert
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Welcome to www.201k.com
