Much has been said recently about the corporate energy colossus Enron, which has crashed and burned before our eyes, cheating stockholders out of hundreds of millions of investment dollars while simultaneously defrauding employees, and affecting the economy as a whole with its billion dollar losses while illustrating executive suite privateering at a level rarely exposed to public view, and possibly rarely achieved.

This is a true scandal of national proportions.

Enron would never have reached the heights of power and wealth that it achieved had it not been for recent loopholes created in federal laws dating back to FDR. The change was championed by Wall Street and almost universally supported by the GOP as sensible "utilities deregulation," which would bring back market economy principles to the production and distribution of energy resources.

The changes in the FDR-era legislation were not overwhelming; but loopholes were created – allowing essentially a ‘free market’ brokering of energy supplies – and they were created by the Republican dominated U.S. Congress during Democratic Pres. William Clinton’s two terms. A case can be made that Enron might never have existed as it is now known, much less succeeded, without those loopholes.

But with the changes in national energy regulations, Enron became the premier broker of electricity, natural gas and in some areas water. It was good at its business, although the people of California might disagree with that conclusion, and many others throughout the country would probably join them.

Enron made so much money so fast that it could hardly contain itself, and it went on a reward and buying spree. It rewarded all of those who had helped, and through PAC’s and other political contributions spread the wealth even to those who had not helped but who might be helpful in the future. And it began buying tangible properties, hard asset businesses.

It is in the latter effort that Enron may have overplayed its hand, since suddenly there was a market requirement greater than the bringing together of an energy producer and an energy user – such as Canadian power producers with California power users – and walking away with a hefty commission. With hard assets it is necessary to manage corporate structures directly, to deal with market forces, and to support and encourage a corporate spirit that leads to greater productivity and its recognition through sales. But Enron wasn’t geared toward such long-range views; it was geared toward the short-term, quick profit.

When it began to falter in those areas, it found an accounting procedure that was in effect like a hexagonal room walled with mirrors. Enron could see what it wanted to see in every direction.

And what it wanted to see was its own image reflected immaculately. It achieved that, for a time, by diverting the great bulk of its operating debt to its hard assets, and thereby keeping its own corporate accounting free and clean from its ‘outside’ responsibilities. It effectively was employing accounting ‘double-think,’ and the Big 5 accounting firm of Arthur Anderson became enmeshed in the process.

Apparent unlimited success and corporate hubris, coupled with a strong dose of boardroom arrogance, might be enough to overcome even the most well established and confident accountants, but when coupled with the company’s highest level government connections it must have seemed like swimming against the Gulf Stream to even broach serious objections to Enron’s policies.

This is the only empathy we can muster for the accounting henchmen of Enron, and it is limited because it is impossible to absolve professionals when they have rationalized giving up the very reason for their existence. Accountants are supposed to hold to account the practices of the companies they audit. There can be empathy but no excuse for doing otherwise.

Yet the pressure had to be immense. Enron and its corporate head, Kenneth Lay, were deeply involved with the Republican Party, and Mr. Lay and his executives made certain everyone knew of their personal, corporate and overall political power.

And therein lies the problem!

We have already seen Attorney General John Ashcroft recuse himself from any involvement in the case because of previous contacts with Enron, its executives, and contributions from the failed giant corporation to his election campaigns.

But that is only the beginning.

Kenneth Lay, the head of Enron, was the keynote speaker at the Republican Convention that nominated George Bush Sr., and he is known as "Kenny-boy" to President George Bush, Jr., who received large contributions to his campaign for the presidency, and before that in his campaigns for the governorship of Texas.

Other current Bush Administration officials with ties to Enron, in one form or another, include Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Federal Energy Regulator Pat Wood III, Presidential Political Adviser Karl Rowe, Economic Adviser Lawrence Lindsey, Secretary of the Army Thomas White, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellic, among others. And, of course, a variety of other political figures, Democratic and Republican, were also beneficiaries of Enron largesse.

But it is the role of the current administration that is important.

Millions upon millions of dollars were spent through a Special Prosecutor’s investigation of Whitewater, and in the end what was revealed only showed what was apparent at the outset; that is, that while in Arkansas the Clinton’s were involved in a speculative land deal that ultimately lost money in every manner possible. And none of it had anything vaguely relating to the national governing process.

That is not the case here.

Vice-President Richard Cheney was apparently deeply involved in meetings with Enron’s Ken Lay, including having Mr. Lay involved in White House meetings when national energy strategy and policies were being discussed and formulated. This raises the question of whether policies relating to energy deregulation were improperly influenced or weighted to provide an advantage to Enron.

And that is why President Bush must step forward and name an impartial Special Prosecutor to investigate all the interactions between the White House and the Bush Administration and Enron. Unlike Whitewater, this will not be taxpayer money spent to find out how good a businessman Mr. Bush may have been during the time he was a governor, but instead will focus on the appearance of high-level improprieties in the White House and the Bush Administration itself that may have provided special advantages to a corporation dealing nationally with precious resources.

Nothing less than the appointment of a Special Prosecutor can be expected of President Bush under these circumstances, particularly if he is to hold any hope of removing this cloud from his Presidency. This is especially true since his own attorney general has had to step down and his vice president seems to have been involved in questionable activities with Enron executives in the White House itself.

President Bush should immediately name a Special Prosecutor.