Message-ID: <28025608.1075840273952.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 12:11:00 -0800 (PST) From: steven.kean@enron.com To: kenneth.lay@enron.com Subject: US Chamber Cc: rosalee.fleming@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com, linda.robertson@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: rosalee.fleming@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com, linda.robertson@enron.com X-From: Steven J Kean X-To: Kenneth Lay X-cc: Rosalee Fleming, Richard Shapiro, Linda Robertson X-bcc: X-Folder: \Kenneth_Lay_Dec2000\Notes Folders\Notes inbox X-Origin: LAY-K X-FileName: klay.nsf You had asked for my input on a response to a letter you received from Tom Donahue regarding increasing Enron's contribution to the US Chamber to $100,000. I have been giving the Chamber a bit of a hard time lately and wanted you to know why. I have been in touch with both Tom and his staff over the last year. Donahue has done a very good job raising money and getting his membership rolls up, both in terms of membership and dollar contribution per member. My reservation about the Chamber is that they won't take a stand on something which is in the best interests of the vast majority of their membership if it will alienate a vocal few. Electric restructuring was a key example of this. There was no doubt where they should have been on the issue, but instead of embracing retail open access legislation at the federal level they decided to have a "process". Naturally, all the utilities volunteered to participate in the process and outnumbered the nonutility members when it came time to vote. The vote supported wholesale, but not retail, reform (with heavy emphasis on ensuring stranded cost recovery). Afterwards, the federal debate shifted solely to wholesale legislation (though this is not exclusively the Chamber's fault). Unfortunately, Tom's forceful and competitive approach when it comes to raising his membership rolls leaves him unwilling to do the right thing if a few members will be upset. For Enron it's a bit like paying $100,000 for a veto right. The only things the organization pushes for are the things everyone agrees on in the business community -- eg China PNTR and lower corporate taxes -- things they will push for whether we pay dues or not (and things we will add our separate voice to in any event). As I have explained to the Chamber, Enron makes its money challenging conventional wisdom, changing the way markets work, and dislocating incumbents. Anything important that we stand for is likely to alienate some members of the business community and the Chamber is unlikely to stand with us. They represent the status quo in the business community. Tom is an extremely promising leader; he needs to create a new kind of voice for the business community. A voice which stands for moving business to the next level, not just protecting its current position. Having said all that, the Chamber (particularly its international chapters) has been useful to us in the past. In previous years, Donahue himself has intervened on our behalf with Latin American leaders. As a consequence, I have asked them for a proposal which would allow us to remain Chamber members at a lower dues (and policy participation) level, but with continuing access to their international activities. I suggested something in the $25,000 range. That's why they are approaching you (they want us to double our current dues to $100,000). Currently, I am inclined to just withdraw from Chamber membership, but I plan to defer to Linda Robertson. I am interested in your insights, or, if you prefer, you can simply refer them to Linda or me.