Enron. Energy task force.
Haliburton.
Thing is, nothing can really be shown that says they got preferential treatment.
Enron? They made their money under Clinton's administration (with gov't contracts, to boot) and the company DIED in 2001 or so. Bush didn't give them ANYTHING for the campaign donations they made. He let them die because, darn it, they DESERVED to die. He didn't try and bail them out --- something the Congress did for the airline industry (when it shouldn't have) because one of the biggest lobbyists for that group is married to a prominent Congressman.
Haliburton? Again, they have been used by the gov't to provide services for YEARS. Bush wasn't the first. They WON the contract to provide emergency services for the military (which eliminates the need to have competitive bids for contracts for every single thing the military or gov't needs done). Nothing illegal or improper there.
And what, precisely, was illegal about the task force? I don't get the illegality here. They had CEO's of energy companies (which isn't too bad an idea when discussing shaping energy policy) and asked for their input. They promised the CEO's that the transcripts wouldn't be made public so that the CEO's could actually provide their honest evaluations rather than trying to play to their shareholders.
I, honestly, don't see the controversy there. I really don't.
-=Mike
The real problem with Haliburton - Not about illegal/not, or that it had already been a government contracter for years and years prior. The problem was that the company had ties to Dick Cheney and that, obviously, is a major conflict of interest.