Martha Stewart vs. Enron redux

Iowa 1L blogger Edward Jones opines about Martha Stewart:

I see Martha as a victim. I mean, why aren't those sleazebags from Enron in prison? Because they're [er, providing President Bush with personal favors]. That's why. (Or is it the other way around?) Maybe if Martha [also provided such personal favors] she wouldn't have gone to prison.*

Of course, it's well within the realm of reason that Martha Stewart was singled out because she was a strong-willed woman, or that she was a staunch Democrat and big donor, but as usual, I think Occam's Razor is the best way of thinking about things.

Let's see about the Enron "sleazebags":

Andrew Fastow (chief financial officer) pleaded guilty, agreed to rat out his boss Jeff Skilling, and will serve a 10-year sentence.

Ben Glisan (treasurer) pleaded guilty and will serve a 5-year sentence.

Andrew Kopper (assistant to Fastow) pleaded guilty, has ratted out his bosses, and will be sentenced after he's done cooperating with the feds.

Jeff Skilling (CFO and then chief executive officer) was indicted in 2004 and faces up to life in prison if convicted. 

Richard Causey (chief accounting officer) was indicted with Skilling.

Ken Lay (chief executive officer/Chairman of the Board) was indicted in mid-2004 in a superseding indictment naming him, Causey, and Skilling as defendants.  Given his age (62 in 2004), he's probably facing a life sentence.

So actually, I think the government is doing quite well against the Enron "sleazebags."

The simplest explanation for why Martha Stewart has already served her prison term (and is now starting her home detention term) while many of the Enron types are still awaiting sentencing is that Stewart's crime was very easy to prove, whereas knowing that something went wrong at Enron is very different from proving to the jury who did exactly what.  It took the DOJ time to unravel the nature of the Enron fraud and to crack insiders.  Once the DOJ got Kopper to play ball, it was able to move up the food chain.  There may be reasons to think that Stewart was singled out, but comparison to the Enron execs isn't really among those reasons.

* I'm not a total prude, and I'm certainly not judgmental of Mr. Jones' exhuberance, but this is something of a family-friendly blog. . . .

Comments

[Erin]

Even though Enron sleazebags have or will serve prison terms, the prosecution's (and media's) focus on Martha is disproportionate to her crime...which was, remember, a crime (lying to federal investigators) that was collateral to a non-crime (she was cleared of insider trading).

I agree with Edward. Martha took one for feminism. And now she's on the rise. It's a "good thing."

[Tung Yin]

the prosecution's (and media's) focus on Martha is disproportionate to her crime

I disagree. Martha Stewart lied directly to SEC lawyers and FBI agents -- with her attorneys next to her!! Consider that she was slated to serve on the Board of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange. . . . I don't see how the SEC and the U.S. DOJ can let someone who lies to them about stock transactions serve in such a position of supervision over the stock market.

[Chad]

hmmm. But its OK for the POTUS to lie about sex under oath in front of a grand jury. While overseeing the most powerful country in the world and subject to blackmail by any foriegn intelligence service that might find out.

Just as most people would lie about minor adultery most would lie about minor financial malfeasance (even though neither underlying offense would rise to the level of a crime). The key is the expectation that grand jury investigations a backed by force &/or imprisonment for lying.

Not that I'm saying it was your position Tung. However, it seems to be the irreconcilable position of a lot of liberals out there.

[Tung Yin]

Well, my sense is that the "liberal" position, if I can paint with a broad brush, is that Clinton should not have been impeached and Stewart should not have been prosecuted, so that's actually not inconsistent. But, as you note, I'm not inconsistent on lying under oath (re Clinton).

[Mike]

I'm going contra the commenters' cynicism. Stewart was more interesting than the other folks. Plus, she was a media celebrity BEFORE the trial, where as the other folks were not. Thus, it would make perfect sense that the media would follow her trial more closely.

Besides, the media has made her more or less a media darling. I'm not sure how they attacked her, or anything else. She's doing damned well for someone who arrogantly thought that she would lie to federal agents. Someone with her smarts should have known better.