An Attack on Free Speech

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
I don't understand this support for the fairness doctrine. Conservative talk radio exists because people actually listen to it. Air America is a liberal talk radio network that has already had to file bankruptcy because it couldn't get enough listeners to pay the bills. People don't want to listen to left wing moon bats on the radio. The free market has already spoken in that respect.

The market is not the answer to everything. The reason Reagan got rid of it in the first place is to win elections. And it worked.

It's dangerous to eliminate other points of view. That's how we ended up in Iraq. Nobody would question this administration in the media for two reasons. One because they would be called un-patriotic by Rush Limbaugh and two because of big ratings. Wars are great for ad revenue. Now we have over 3,000 dead patriots. Maybe if another voice was heard they would still be alive taking care of their children.

I listen to Air America and don't always agree with what they say either. I think there should be an opposing view point on their shows also.

People who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
The Fairness Doctrine was a failure.
To state that it should become law again is to acknowledge that no other option exists. When in fact they do. With this thing called the internet all points of view are heard, all one has to do is look.
So you state that the free market ( a place when the people decide ) is not the answer, so you need the government to decide for you, how lame. What we need is less government and more people willing to stand up for themselves.
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
So you state that the free market ( a place when the people decide ) is not the answer, so you need the government to decide for you, how lame. What we need is less government and more people willing to stand up for themselves.

This is exactly the kind of misinterpetation con-talk radio re-enforces upon it's hardcore listeners. One who states the free market isn't the answer for everything gets accused of being a socialist gov't loving communist who can't stand up for themselves. We've been living under a mixed economy for years and years and along comes the popularity of neo right wing party and starts spewing overbearing, overexaggerating statements on the air waves that Democrates want to take the free market away from you. This is being debated on another thread (Ron paul raises over 3.8 million) Read Up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brett636
I don't understand this support for the fairness doctrine. Conservative talk radio exists because people actually listen to it. Air America is a liberal talk radio network that has already had to file bankruptcy because it couldn't get enough listeners to pay the bills. People don't want to listen to left wing moon bats on the radio. The free market has already spoken in that respect.


May take on this is Moderates,Liberals, and Independents don't need to be repeatedly told that our views are heartfelt and righteous, where on the other hand Conservatives need to be constantly reminded and re-assuerd by Lindbaugh and Savage that their administration and radical wing of the Republican party isn't giong to hell in a handbasket. I must admit, they are entertaining host, that always good for ratings as well as all the retired Rep boby boomers who don't work and stay home listening to the radio cause they don't know how to turn on a computer.
 

athena

Well-Known Member
...This is what happened in 1933 Germany by a guy named Joseph Goebbles. Because of the Versailles treaty Germany was in a deep depression and had super high unemployment. Goebbles said that all their troubles were because of the Jews. Need I say more???

Now Savage has a right to his views but there are some stupid people out there who believe that if it comes out of the radio it must be true. Now that's dangerous. I do agree with Savage on some points, but some of the things he says are very hateful and it's just to get ratings....

The propoganda against the Jews was the cornerstone for the foundation that eventually lead to the Holocaust. Stereotypes are a lazy way to think about people. When it comes to human beings, which are complex organisms, it is not an adaptive skill. In the case of the Jews, there were economic struggles that were explained using the Jews as a scapegoat for the problems.

In the case of the Muslims, they are being used as a scapegoat for global terrorism which is uniquely different from previous types of violence between countries. The rules have changed and it has become increasingly more difficult to fight opponents that don't "play by the rules". While terrorism is certainly a new and ugly problem we as a global community are facing, using Muslims as a scapegoat is not the answer. Have we learned nothing from the past? Will we only stop once we have rounded up the Muslims and sent them to death camps? Will there be an America or an England to step up and stop us?

We, as Americans, do not have unlimited rights. We are limited in our basic rights to the extent that they do not infringe upon the rights of others. When considering the right of free speech, individuals in the media are not just voicing opinions but are doing so with credibility granted to those in the media. With that credibility comes responsibility. The media is suppose to help us understand the world and is even used as a watch dog for inappropriate behavior of people in power. This is the responsibility for those in media.

I just want to end this by quoting one of my favorite movie lines, "People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone." It matters a great deal what the person at the microphone is saying.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
The propoganda against the Jews was the cornerstone for the foundation that eventually lead to the Holocaust. Stereotypes are a lazy way to think about people. When it comes to human beings, which are complex organisms, it is not an adaptive skill. In the case of the Jews, there were economic struggles that were explained using the Jews as a scapegoat for the problems.

In the case of the Muslims, they are being used as a scapegoat for global terrorism which is uniquely different from previous types of violence between countries. The rules have changed and it has become increasingly more difficult to fight opponents that don't "play by the rules". While terrorism is certainly a new and ugly problem we as a global community are facing, using Muslims as a scapegoat is not the answer. Have we learned nothing from the past? Will we only stop once we have rounded up the Muslims and sent them to death camps? Will there be an America or an England to step up and stop us?

We, as Americans, do not have unlimited rights. We are limited in our basic rights to the extent that they do not infringe upon the rights of others. When considering the right of free speech, individuals in the media are not just voicing opinions but are doing so with credibility granted to those in the media. With that credibility comes responsibility. The media is suppose to help us understand the world and is even used as a watch dog for inappropriate behavior of people in power. This is the responsibility for those in media.

I just want to end this by quoting one of my favorite movie lines, "People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone." It matters a great deal what the person at the microphone is saying.

Oh Athena, you just walked in front of the firing squad with that post!
:wink2:

Very well said BTW!
 

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
The Fairness Doctrine was a failure.
To state that it should become law again is to acknowledge that no other option exists. When in fact they do. With this thing called the internet all points of view are heard, all one has to do is look.
So you state that the free market ( a place when the people decide ) is not the answer, so you need the government to decide for you, how lame. What we need is less government and more people willing to stand up for themselves.

There is push media and pull media. Radio and TV are push because all you have to do is push one button and Rush is pushed into your head. The internet is a pull style of media. You have to pull it up to hear it or read it. Comparing Radio and TV to internet is like comparing apples to oranges.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
The market is not the answer to everything. The reason Reagan got rid of it in the first place is to win elections. And it worked.

It's dangerous to eliminate other points of view. That's how we ended up in Iraq. Nobody would question this administration in the media for two reasons. One because they would be called un-patriotic by Rush Limbaugh and two because of big ratings. Wars are great for ad revenue. Now we have over 3,000 dead patriots. Maybe if another voice was heard they would still be alive taking care of their children.

I listen to Air America and don't always agree with what they say either. I think there should be an opposing view point on their shows also.

People who forget history are doomed to repeat it.


Your absolutely right. The world is littered with great examples of governments who control what their people read, see, and hear. The people of North Korea have been voted the most politically savvy populus on the planet because of this. China controls what its people read on the internet and see on tv so their fragile minds won't have to hear of all the human rights violations taking place there. I wish my government controlled every aspect of the media so I can be as uninformed as you. :rolleyes:
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
This is exactly the kind of misinterpetation con-talk radio re-enforces upon it's hardcore listeners. One who states the free market isn't the answer for everything gets accused of being a socialist gov't loving communist who can't stand up for themselves. We've been living under a mixed economy for years and years and along comes the popularity of neo right wing party and starts spewing overbearing, overexaggerating statements on the air waves that Democrates want to take the free market away from you. This is being debated on another thread (Ron paul raises over 3.8 million) Read Up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brett636
I don't understand this support for the fairness doctrine. Conservative talk radio exists because people actually listen to it. Air America is a liberal talk radio network that has already had to file bankruptcy because it couldn't get enough listeners to pay the bills. People don't want to listen to left wing moon bats on the radio. The free market has already spoken in that respect.


May take on this is Moderates,Liberals, and Independents don't need to be repeatedly told that our views are heartfelt and righteous, where on the other hand Conservatives need to be constantly reminded and re-assuerd by Lindbaugh and Savage that their administration and radical wing of the Republican party isn't giong to hell in a handbasket. I must admit, they are entertaining host, that always good for ratings as well as all the retired Rep boby boomers who don't work and stay home listening to the radio cause they don't know how to turn on a computer.


Quite a few independents, moderates, and even liberals listen to conservative talk radio. Its not about needing reminded that we are right, its about having a good source of news other than the liberal mass news media centers like NBC. ABC, CBS, and CNN. The kind of news you get on talk radio is much more in depth and honest versus what is heard elsewhere.
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Quite a few independents, moderates, and even liberals listen to conservative talk radio. Its not about needing reminded that we are right, its about having a good source of news other than the liberal mass news media centers like NBC. ABC, CBS, and CNN. The kind of news you get on talk radio is much more in depth and honest versus what is heard elsewhere.

One thing people are failing to realize is that conservative talk radio, or even liberal talk radio, is not news. It's opinions. Conservative talk radio beats the pants off their liberal counterparts for the same reason that Fox News is beating the pants off their liberal counterparts. That reason is the fact that more and more people are starting to realize that CNN and company are a joke. Now I just mentioned how these talk radio shows aren't news outlets. What's funny about that is the fact that people are trusting the news they get from those shows more than the crap that comes out of CNN and the other liberal news programs. Now that is funny. Or is it sad? Sad because in this day and age conservative talk shows have more credibility then news networks? LOL! This is all why the liberal media, and especially liberal talk radio, wants to silence the likes of Michael Savage. People like him (yes even him) have more credibility then they do and it hurts their ratings. Not to mention speaks the truth and we all know the truth hurts.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
We see what less government gives us. Enron, Tyco, Jack Abramhof and predatory lenders. Sorry don't work.

There needs to be a happy medium.

You pick the wrong examples to make your point. All four of these are very heavily regulated by the goverment. Energy companies, lobbiest, and banking are among the most regulated by the federal government. Maybe the happy medium is much less government regulation.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
You pick the wrong examples to make your point. All four of these are very heavily regulated by the goverment. Energy companies, lobbiest, and banking are among the most regulated by the federal government. Maybe the happy medium is much less government regulation.

AV8 makes a good point there EZ although I think we all share your dislike of the 4 examples you did give. No argument at least form me on that. Thomas Jefferson once said:

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Another quote of his of interest to the subject at hand:

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

Continuing:

I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

And finally:

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.

EZ and again anyone else,

There are times like right now I wish we were out on my patio on a nice 70 plus degree sunny day, throw on some nice steaks on the grill, ice down a few brews but if not into that I could go vegee and sweet ice tea so as not to offend but the reason I say this is face to face where we could have conversation, I do believe there is a lot of common ground. Sure, we'll part ways on some things because no 2 people agree on everything but I think we would agree the very same in many respects the same evils of society.

Things like Enron, bad lending practices and on and on, I do believe we'd all share a common dislike. But in my case, and I only speak for myself, sadly these things have always been with us and I say this not to suggest we throw up our hands and accept. But where you see gov't as the means to protect you and eliminate the risk, I see gov't as a mechanism of breeding that spreads the disease further afield.

A large central gov't like the hub of a wheel gives someone of evil intent a central focus that if they can overtake and manipulate, like a bad disease, then use this central mechanism as a carrier and thus infect the whole body politic. If there is no single central point and say for example there are 50 central points, it takes much greater work and effort to infect the entire body politic. Odds would suggest that it would be nearly impossible to move across all 50 in concert to overwhelm at once but rather at some point, some of those 50 would be wise to the fraud and thus a defensive action that would save the entire body politic from being infected. Instead of just 50, let's say those 50 are now de-centralize to a degree and you now have 1000's and 1000's of little hives. Will some be overrun with disease from time to time? Yep! But what are the chances you can infect all the 1000's in concert to prevent detection of the fraud before it's to late? Did you ever find it odd that we fuss about the micro management of Glenlake at UPS and this drive towards centralization and removal of individual needs and concerns of the local business but we inturn demand the exact thing from our gov't in Washington. Are we not a 2 faced species?
:happy-very:

Our nature is in some respects to attract towards a central point especially when we see this point reflecting our point of view and outlook on life. Everyone should live their life like me because my life works. I know, we all feel that way. It's our nature. It makes us feel empowered and in some respects, the light of our own destiny when our beliefs are the dominate thinking in society. If a little feels good, a lot should be even better! Yeah it feels good, me too as I'm no different.

We also see the illusion of reduced risk as people are centralized and the belief that we are protected from those who would harm us. History is loaded with man's examples of where that belief has led to the death and destruction of untold numbers of human life and the bitter taste of total tyranny. Tyranny and pure despotism is not a all at once burst of light but begins as a small smoldering ember that people at large just don't see. It's the ember of one or a few at best. It starts to flare and at first it's heat from it's flames are warm, soothing and of great comfort. In most cases, the thinking is a little more flame would be even more comforting and warm so you feed the flame it's desired fuel. All of a sudden you find an out of control raging fire storm that consumes you to your destruction.

George Washington understood the relationship of governance with fire as he said:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.



We see what less government gives us. Enron, Tyco, Jack Abramhof and predatory lenders.

IMHO and I think the point AV8 in some if not same respect was making, Enron, Tyco, Jack Abramhof and predatory lenders didn't come about as a result of lack of oversight, but rather they were seated in gov't with those in position to run block which allowed them to do what they did. (AV8, I hope I got that right on your part, my apologies to you if I didn't)

Make gov't more oversighted? (I know, bad english) This won't stop them and in fact this tends to lessen the field of true, honest, open competition within business and thus making the potential of gains almost at criminal levels so that the criminal minded step in to fill the void and the problem worsens.

As to you EZ being a comunist. I don't believe that at all about you. Here's an observation from a purely historical context to consider in times like these. When certain people make willd allegations about another person that has no logic, reason or substance behind the claim to back it up, in our world today of sophisticated and technological advancement, we would say that such person had nothing else of fact or substance to argue so they result to name calling. This may be true in this case.

At the time of Freud, he could explain this person in terms of medical conditions and this again may also be true. During the times of the enlightenment, the great men of thinking also had their explainations of why a person would utter such things but in what we call the dark ages, they also had an explaination but it lacked the sophisticated understanding of man nor did it include the knowledge of technology. No medical understand or terms of philosophy.

Instead they took a very simplistic approach and referred to the person as the "Village Idiot!" Just thought I'd pass along that "moment in history" for your pleasure.
:wink2:

I'll leave you with this in mind.

Old George also said the following:

Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.


And closing with Thomas Jefferson:
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
wkmac said:
Things like Enron, bad lending practices and on and on, I do believe we'd all share a common dislike. But in my case, and I only speak for myself, sadly these things have always been with us and I say this not to suggest we throw up our hands and accept. But where you see gov't as the means to protect you and eliminate the risk, I see gov't as a mechanism of breeding that spreads the disease further afield.



One of the most common and misleading myths declared by conservatives and Libertarians is the idea that the free market is “natural” – that it exists in some natural world, separate from government. In this view, government rules and regulations only “interfere” with the natural beneficial workings of the market. Even the term “free market” implies that it can exist free from government and that is prospers best when government leaves it alone. Nothing could be IMO further from the truth. In reality, a market economy does not exist separate from government – it is very much a product of government rules and regulations. The dirty little secret of our “free” market system is that it would simply not exist as we know it without presence of an active government that creates and maintains the rules and conditions that allow it to operate efficiently.

Freedom. Market capitalism requires freedom. People must be free to sell their labor, to invest their money, and so on. This is so basic that we sometime forget about it.
Property Rights. Without the right to own property and dispose of it as you wish, capitalism as we know it could not exist. These rights are created and protected by the government.
Law and Order. A market system cannot work well without a functioning criminal justice system. Otherwise, organized crime would easily take over large sectors of the business community. Extortion, bribery, kidnapping, and murder would become the reigning corporate model. Without the rule of law, our economy would resemble the “mafia capitalism” that Russia has suffered from in its transition to capitalism.
Limited Liability Laws. Capitalism requires capital – lots of it. But without limited liability laws, investors are unlikely to risk investing their money in businesses.
Bankruptcy Protection. Along with limited liability, bankruptcy rules formed a crucial financial safety net for entrepreneurs. It is important to note, however, that bankruptcy laws were passed not simply out of concern or sympathy for failed entrepreneurs, but also as a way to lessen economic risk and therefore encourage more investment and economic growth.
A Stable Money Supply. Without reliable money, markets would be based on primarily on barter and thus be extremely limited.
Patents and Copyrights. Large portions of our economy would grind to a halt if the government did not grant patents and copyrights. Without this massive intervention into the free market, the drug, music, publishing, and software industries could not exist. Bill Gates likes to think of himself as a self-made man, but he would not be one of the richest men in the world if the government did not make it illegal for anyone but Microsoft to copy and sell Windows.
Banking Regulation and Insurance. A capitalist economy depends heavily on stable banks to finance growing businesses.
ETC....ETC...ETC...
However you can make viable arguments as to how much regulation is a "mechanism to spreading disease"and bogg down production and effciency countered by how it effects the saftety, well being and protection of it's citizens, enviromental concerns, fairness doctrines and level playing fields.
:peaceful:
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
wkmac said:
One of the most common and misleading myths declared by conservatives and Libertarians is the idea that the free market is “natural” – that it exists in some natural world, separate from government. In this view, government rules and regulations only “interfere” with the natural beneficial workings of the market. Even the term “free market” implies that it can exist free from government and that is prospers best when government leaves it alone. Nothing could be IMO further from the truth. In reality, a market economy does not exist separate from government – it is very much a product of government rules and regulations. The dirty little secret of our “free” market system is that it would simply not exist as we know it without presence of an active government that creates and maintains the rules and conditions that allow it to operate efficiently.


:peaceful:

While our market may not exist as we know it or the market in the former soviet union would not exist as they knew it without government interference this is no proof that a market cannot exist without government interference. I at one time would agree with most of the things you say a market needs to survive. I have seen markets survive and in some cases thrive(that is subjective) without these things that most people in the states see as something necessary. When someone trades raw beef for a live chicken they do not need a monetary supply, or copyright protection, or banking or even law and order. I just think that the free market is the natural state of things and intervention most likely takes away from the efficiency of the market.

Do not jump on me to bad I do not advocate getting rid of our monetary system or patents or trademarks. Some protections to the business actually do help encourage innovation but they also in almost all cases drive up prices. I just think more times than not Government interference has negative unintended consequences. I just on the most basic level think it is bad to give up your freedom to allow more Government control. I am sorry I just think that consumers getting the best possible goods and services at the lowest prices in the most efficient market is a good thing.
 

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
Ok folks...it looks like we've added another commie to the board. Great! :)

So if someone doesn't agree with your view you're a communist???? That's what the communists think. I believe in moderation. Too much corporate power is a bad thing. Too much government power is a bad thing.

You really should get to know me before you stereotype me. Oh yeah thats a communist trait also. Stereotyping.
 

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
One thing people are failing to realize is that conservative talk radio, or even liberal talk radio, is not news. It's opinions. Conservative talk radio beats the pants off their liberal counterparts for the same reason that Fox News is beating the pants off their liberal counterparts. That reason is the fact that more and more people are starting to realize that CNN and company are a joke. Now I just mentioned how these talk radio shows aren't news outlets. What's funny about that is the fact that people are trusting the news they get from those shows more than the crap that comes out of CNN and the other liberal news programs. Now that is funny. Or is it sad? Sad because in this day and age conservative talk shows have more credibility then news networks? LOL! This is all why the liberal media, and especially liberal talk radio, wants to silence the likes of Michael Savage. People like him (yes even him) have more credibility then they do and it hurts their ratings. Not to mention speaks the truth and we all know the truth hurts.

You just keep drinking the Bush beer. Credibility and talk radio are paradoxical.

It comes down to demographics. People who watch the news are generally older and consider themselves conservative. So slanting the news (faux news) to gain viewers so they can make money on advertising is not what I call informing the public. I don't consider CNN to be liberal. Glen Beck???? yeah hes a real liberal.
 

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
AV8 makes a good point there EZ although I think we all share your dislike of the 4 examples you did give. No argument at least form me on that.

The problem with the regulations are that the people who regulate are beauracrats. Take for example Enron. When you have the fox guarding the hen house there is bound to be problems.

read this:


Source: http://chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0201180272jan18.story
The collapse of Enron Corp. has drawn new scrutiny of a powerful Washington couple who between them played prominent roles in deregulating energy trading to the benefit of the company.
The couple, U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and his wife, Wendy Gramm, who serves on Enron's board of directors, both know Enron's top executive, Kenneth Lay--and have benefited financially from their relationship with him.
Phil Gramm has collected more than $97,000 in campaign contributions from Enron, according to the advocacy group Public Citizen. Wendy Gramm was paid between $915,000 and $1.8 million in salary, attendance fees, stock options and dividends over the past eight years, the group concluded.
"What has all of this bought" Enron, asked Sheila Krumholz, research director for the Center for Responsive Politics. "Has this bought them cover?"
In the early 1990s, Wendy Gramm, then chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, moved to lift governmental oversight of energy contracts that Enron and other companies traded. A short time later, she was appointed to Enron's board of directors.
And in December 2000, Phil Gramm helped clear the way for a bill turning his wife's deregulation decision into law, something Enron had long wanted.
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, of which Phil Gramm was a sponsor, contained a clause making the exemption law. Though it is now called the "Enron exemption" on Capitol Hill, a Gramm aide said the senator had not prepared that section of the bill.
"We were not involved with that part of it," said Larry Neal. Neither Wendy Gramm nor Phil Gramm could be reached for comment Thursday.
Wendy Gramm's role at Enron has drawn congressional attention in the wake of the Enron collapse. She was among those subpoenaed last week by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, headed by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).
Move to Enron's board
Although her husband is far better known, Wendy Gramm earned a place of power for herself in Washington. In 1988 she was appointed chairwoman of the trading commission by President Ronald Reagan. The commission at the time regulated futures trading in electricity, a business Enron hoped to dominate.
Shortly after President Bill Clinton took office in 1993, and Gramm was set to lose her chairmanship, she pushed through a rule deregulating the trading of energy contracts. Enron had been lobbying for exemption from regulation for months.
Six days later she resigned. Five weeks later she was on the board at Enron.
Wendy Gramm served on the audit committee of the board, meaning she was one of the directors responsible for Enron's financial reporting to investors.
Beginning in the late 1990s, Enron executives hid hundreds of millions of dollars in debt in supposedly unrelated partnerships. The result was to make Enron appear much stronger financially than it actually was.
When word of the partnerships surfaced and Enron acknowledged its debt last year, the company's stock price collapsed and it filed for bankruptcy.
The members of the audit committee were to oversee the partnerships, according to a report by Enron's law firm, Vinson & Elkins.
That means the partnerships were not merely a misstep by a lower-level executive but rather were supposed to be known to Wendy Graham and the top leaders of Enron.
"The audit committee knew of and approved of those partnerships," said Tyson Slocum, research director of Public Citizen's energy program.
Wendy Gramm has known Lay for years.
Both were considered possible candidates for Cabinet posts in the Reagan administration.
"Dr. Gramm's experience in financial and commodities markets will prove extremely valuable to Enron," Lay said in announcing her appointment to the board of directors. Wendy Gramm has a doctorate in economics.
Role in senator's campaign
At the time, Lay and Wendy Gramm said her decision favoring Enron played no role in the company's decision to hire her. Lay said it was "convoluted" to question the propriety of naming her to the board.
While federal regulations prohibited Wendy Gramm from lobbying the trade commission for a time after she left it, no law prohibited her from working for a company she once regulated.
Lay, for his part, involved himself in Phil Gramm's career.
Besides contributing money to the senator, Lay served as the regional chairman of Gramm's unsuccessful campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996.
Wendy Gramm notified Enron in December 1998 that congressional ethics rules might prevent her family from holding stock in Enron, according to Public Citizen. Phil Gramm was preparing legislation that would affect the company, triggering the rules.
Enron then devised a way to compensate Wendy Gramm, while getting around the problems associated with her ownership of stock in the company, according to Public Citizen. "Enron canceled all of her outstanding shares and provided her with an additional service fee for a total of $117,000" over the next four years, the group said.
 
Top