The perfect scandal

A giant energy company with the most clout Washington has ever seen files for the largest bankruptcy in the history of capitalism. The retirement funds of thousands of innocent employees are wiped out while top company officials cash in. One of the largest and most respected accounting firms in the nation admits it destroyed a million or more documents relevant to a criminal investigation. It’s an election year. In the world of political scandals, the Enron case has all the elements to brew into the perfect storm.

So far, the Bush administration has taken the right steps to see that it doesn’t. The president, a longtime close friend of Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, unequivocally asserts he had no advance knowledge of the company’s collapse and has not been asked for any government assistance. Attorney General John Ashcroft, a recipient of some of Enron’s most generous contributions when he was in the Senate, properly has recused himself and his immediate staff from the investigation. Two administration officials, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans readily concede they had advance notice of Enron’s collapse but say no one exerted any pressure for government assistance or for a constrained investigation.

The right steps, just not enough of them. President Bush says he wants a review of regulations affecting company pension plans that require employees to invest in company stock so that Enron-like debacles are not repeated. That preventative measure must not preclude vigorous investigation of insider-trading allegations at Enron – how, in the days and weeks before the collapse, a handful of Enron executives were able to sell $1 billion in stocks while ordinary employees were barred from selling.

The White House has disclosed that Vice President Cheney or members of his energy task force met six times with Enron officials. That disclosure must be expanded to full explanations of what was discussed and what impact Enron had upon the national energy policy that resulted. The recusal of Mr. Ashcroft and staff should be expanded, given the degree to which Enron has tried to influence public policy in question, to the entire Justice Department – if ever an independent special counsel was needed, it is now. The blurring of lines between publicly traded companies and the accounting firms that are supposed to protect the public has long been a concern. The activities of Andersen – the possibility that it knew about, even helped set up, sham companies that hid the true state of Enron’s troubles – should lead to thorough investigation, prosecution if warranted and, most importantly, legislation to restore public confidence.

All the conditions are right for a hurricane-strength scandal, but with a war on terrorism to win, an international coalition to hold together and an economy still struggling to keep Americans on the job, the timing could not be worse. With so much at stake, Americans have every right to expect the White House be forthcoming and diligent and for its congressional opponents to be thorough but restrained. Even in an election year.