Message-ID: <12198625.1075840224303.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\All documents
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.