William Donaldson, we hardly knew ye

In a sense, we can consider William Donaldson’s tenure at the Security and Exchange Commission a rare example of Bush admitting a mistake. The White House tapped Donaldson to replace Harvey Pitt over two years ago, and expected Donaldson to follow the conservative line on corporate regulation. Which is to say, ignore and disregard all corporate regulation.

But a funny thing happened. Donaldson, a longtime friend of the president, actually took his job seriously and refused to kowtow to the demands of Big Business. Indeed, he routinely sided with SEC Dems, hired a small army of corporate regulators, and began (gasp!) enforcing securities law.

As far as Donaldson was concerned, he was doing a good job and wanted to continue to do so.

Mr. Donaldson, a 73-year-old former Wall Street executive and longtime friend of the Bush family, quietly has let it be known to the White House that he would like to remain as the nation’s top securities cop. But the business lobby, fed up with what it believes is an overzealous SEC and a chairman who has been a tougher regulator than expected, has made it equally clear that it would like nothing more than to see Mr. Donaldson gone.

Indeed, the Business Roundtable, United States Chamber of Commerce, and Republicans in general fought to have Donaldson replaced with someone who would be less stringent about holding corporations accountable. Yesterday, they got their wish; Bush fired Donaldson.

Predictably, Bush’s would-be replacement will do far better in following Corporate America’s instructions.

Acting quickly, President Bush on Thursday named conservative Rep. Christopher Cox to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission. Cox would succeed William Donaldson, who announced the day before he was stepping down after 28 months on the job.

With Cox at his side at a White House ceremony, Bush said the lawmaker is “a champion of the free enterprise system in Congress. … He’ll be an outstanding leader of the SEC.”

Or maybe not. Cox’s experience in the area includes taking a leadership role on the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which weakened investor protections and “limited the liability of accountants who blew audits and of others who were found guilty of fraud.”

Cox has also accepted more than a quarter million dollars from the securities and investment industry, in addition to having been sued for “misleading regulators and investors about the condition of a real estate investment fund” in the 1980s. To fully understand his approach, don’t forget that Cox even defended Enron’s crimes.

In fact, the only time Cox believes in government oversight of large corporations is when the corporation offends his political sensibilities. When CBS ran a report on Bush’s failure to do his National Guard duty and relied on dubious documentation, Cox was among the first to call for a congressional investigation into the network.

I’m noticing a bit of a pattern here. When Bush needs an ambassador to the United Nations, he picks someone who doesn’t believe the U.N. should exist. When he needs an attorney general, he picks someone who believes the president is above the law. When he needs a Securities and Exchange Commission chairperson, he nominates someone who rejects the very idea of securities crimes.

Cox’s nomination will need Senate confirmation. Bush is daring Senate Dems to raise a fuss. The Dems shouldn’t waste the opportunity.

Update: Don’t miss this from comments section. Classic.

Isn’t this great. A guy who actually does his job is given the ax. We all know BUSH doesn’t want people to rein in business. This is free enterprize at it’s best. Corporations can do NO WRONG….everyone else. TOUGH SHIT Hey man, I’m a PRESIDENT who cares.

YEAH RIGHT…..he cares about lining his own pocket

  • Steve, I just want to tell you that I can’t figure out why your blog isn’t on the top of the heap. I think it must be just because you haven’t been blogging as long as the “big boys.” Anyway, it has nothing to do with this topic (another excellent post, IMHO) and it may sound like another audience member at a Bush “town hall meeting,” but I’m glad you’re blogging and I look forward to your future success and, yes, even blogging fame. And in the interest of full disclosure, this comment was not from a pre-screened reader.

  • WASHINGTON– In a statement delivered today from the White House Press Room, President Bush announced his choice to head the Department of the Henhouse, Hungry Fox.

    “Mr. Fox carries from his current position as bird nest guardian an understanding that protecting the Henhouse requires constant vigilance and dedication. He’s even said that once he’s installed as Secretary, he’ll lock the henhouse from the inside to ensure that no outside forces can harm the hens.”

    Though his nomination was widely expected, Mr. Fox is viewed by many Democrats as a controversial choice because of the record amassed in his previous position in the Bush administration, guardian of bird nests.

    “Outside forces aren’t my concern. He ate every bird and egg in the tree,” complained Aesop Fabler, ranking Democrat on the Avian Affairs Subcommittee. “I have no idea why the President would want to put Mr. Fox in charge of the Henhouse.”

    “Mr. Fox is the world’s foremost expert on market-based bird management solutions,” replied Rich Bluesuit, Chairman of the Avian Affairs Subcommittee. “Sure, his personal style has been known to ruffle a few feathers, but on several occasions I’ve personally seen him go out on a limb for a fledgling, carefully cradling it in his mouth until he can release it in his own briar patch. At least, that’s what he says he does with them, and I refuse to hound the man about it.”

    Mr. Fox, who is being treated for food poisoning from sour grapes and could not be reached for comment, is expected to be confirmed.

  • Very good, Scott.

    This is a little like making Errol Flynn night watchman at the Annie Wright Seminary for Young Ladies, isn’t it? Actually, a lot like it.

  • Reagan pioneered the technique. To get rid of an agency you don’t like — say the Environmental Protection Agency — involves going through Congress and having massive amounts of unfavorable publicity. To destroy it is much easier. Just put someone in charge whose aim is to destroy it. No fuss, no muss.

  • Steve:

    Love your blog but come on; Cox did not defend Enron’s crimes. Instead, he was criticizing government budgetary techniques. Cox is a terrible choice but he did not support Enron.

    One of the (legitimate) tactics of the Republicans is to point out how government spending does not comply with FASB standars. You know the budgetary gimmicks: deferring spending by one day to comply with budget limits; underestimating or exaggerating expected growth so that the deficit fits certain parameters, etc. Of course, when I say that Republicans use these tactics, please note I don’t say that they are taking steps to alleviate these problems. As we both know, the Repubs are total hypocrites about reducing spending or reforming the budgetary process.

    Keep it coming but play a little fairer, okay? Let’s not be like the Republicans.

  • Comments are closed.