by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 29, 2002
All Rights Reserved.

igging in his heels, Vice President Dick Cheney refused to turn over to the General Accounting Office memos and documents regarding his meetings with key Enron officials that ostensibly shaped the White House's energy policy. With Enron's bankruptcy churning dangerous riptides, Cheney's obstinance fuels wild speculation not easily explained away by stock constitutional arguments. Cheney's position ignores the colossal impact of Enron's failure not only on employees" 401(k)s but on the public's confidence in financial markets. Surely, Cheney comprehends the gravity of the Enron mess. Separation of powers has little to do with his reluctance to come clean with requested documents. While the White House toyed with executive privilege, the GAO filed suit to get the records. Taking action not seen since Watergate, "In the absence of that [the release of documents] the courts will have to decide," said GAO Comptroller General David Walker. Stonewalling—for whatever reason—gives a bad impression.

      In Cheney's view, releasing information compromises the White House's ability to receive "unvarnished advice." Though executive privilege has its place, this isn't one of those situations. Investigative agencies like the GAO have a fiduciary duty to get to the bottom of national scandals that shake public trust. Thwarting murky investigations doesn't breed the kind of confidence needed to reassure shell-shocked investors. "What's really at stake here is the ability of the president and vice president to solicit advice from anybody they want in confidence," Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday." Ordinarily, it's a good argument but with public money and pension funds eviscerated and key Enron executives making out like bandits, Congress must do its part to restore public trust. Without a special prosecutor, what's Congress supposed to do—give up? Yes, Enron greased palms on both sides of the aisle, but that doesn't mean that Congress can't perform its constitutional duties.

      Back last Spring, Cheney met directly with Enron officials to help craft a coherent energy policy. With runaway prices, power shortages and rolling blackouts in California, energy stole the headlines, putting a lot more on Cheney's plate than he bargained for. Last Spring, the public didn't have a clue about Enron's eventual meltdown. Only a handful of insiders at Enron and Anderson Consulting knew that the energy Titan was on shaky ground. It's no coincidence that Enron Vice Chairman J. Clifford Baxter, recently found Jan. 25 slumped over his steering wheel with a bullet wound to the head, liquidated more than $28 million in stock options and common shares. Though Baxter was identified as a potential "whistle-blower" by Enron VP Sherron Watkins, the fact is he cashed out before the stock crashed in October 2001, suggesting that he was covering his flanks. With everything that happened in Spring 2001, it's no wonder that Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) wants a more complete record of Cheney's meetings.

      Seeing Waxman's inquiry as a partisan witch-hunt conveniently rationalizes the White House's claim to executive privilege. Waxman wants to know whether there was any link between Cheney's energy task force and White House energy policy. Claiming that White House policy favored Enron doesn't automatically indicate that the White House misbehaved. Without any arm-twisting, the administration's views would have closely paralleled Enron's. Despite this defense, Republicans, like Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the House committee investigating Enron, think the White House should put its cards on the table. "The quicker the administration moves to defuse the growing tension, the better off they will be in the long run," said Tauzin's spokesman Ken Johnson, hoping to avert a showdown with Congress. Even Republican senators like Fred Thomson (R-Tenn.) urged the White House to put constitutional issues aside and fully disclose details of meetings with Enron executives. "Unfortunately, it's not just a legal question," said Thomson, "it's a policy question, and it's a political question," reminding fellow Republicans that closing ranks might have unwanted fallout.

      Cheney's right recognizing that political shrapnel's already flying. "In the aftermath of the Enron collapse, I think people are going to start to ask, 'What are they hiding?'" said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) on CNN's "Late Edition," already smelling blood with mid-year contests now underway. "This decision is a big mistake by the Bush administration." Not taking Lieberman's bait, Cheney prefers to stand on constitutional grounds. Coming clean could be more damaging if the record reeks of cronyism and influence peddling. Battling Congress shifts the debate from constitutional arguments to swirling suspicions. "Time after time, after time, administrations have traded away the authority of the president to do his job," said Cheney on "Fox News Sunday," "We're not going to do that in this administration." Despite Cheney's insistence, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. raised the possibility of some compromise on NBC's "Meet the Press." Picking the right battles, the White House should consider compromising and redirect its energy toward more important domestic and foreign policy objectives.

      Bush's State of the Union message made it plain that the White House intends to ratchet up the pressure on terrorists and the rogue nations that support them. Slamming the door on Congress—and the press—invites unwanted antagonism, shifts blame away from key policy objectives and casts suspicions on the administration. "Now the fact is that Enron didn't get any special deals," said Cheney. "Enron's been treated appropriately by this administration . . . There is no evidence to indicate anybody did anything wrong in the administration." Yes, there's no evidence yet of any quid pro quo, but why the reluctance to open up the record? More secrecy at the White House doesn't set the right example for corporations pulling the wool over investors' eyes. Protecting private conversations has nothing to do with the legitimate public record on which the nation's energy policy was based. While the White House has the right to claim executive privilege, they can't ignore the most egregious corporate scandal in U.S. history. Cheney must reconsider what's good for the country—not just what's good for theWhite House.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He's director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in political consulting and strategic communication. He's author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.