Floyd Norris notes in this NY Times article that Securities and Exchange Commission chairman William Donaldson is not sounding or acting like the go-slow regulator that many expected when he was named to the post. As Mr. Norris notes:

[Mr. Donaldson] compared the current system of electing corporate directors, in which the incumbent board nominates a slate and no other candidates are on the ballot, to elections in the former Soviet Union: “It’s not really an election at all.”

[Mr. Donaldson] also emphasized the need to do something to change what he called the Lake Wobegon system that has caused pay for corporate bosses to soar. He said boards all conclude their chief executives are above average, as are all the children in Garrison Keillor’s mythical Minnesota town. He also said he was determined to force hedge funds to register with the S.E.C.

As one might expect, Mr. Donaldson’s proposals are not particularly pleasing to some elements of the Republican Party:

Mr. Donaldson’s efforts are frustrating to those who expected that the Bush administration would roll back regulation. The proposal received a D- average grade from Wendy Gramm, director of the regulatory studies program at George Mason University. “The S.E.C. offered no evidence that existing solutions to poorly performing boards do not work,” wrote Ms. Gramm . . .

Say what? Wendy Gramm, the former Enron director, is the “director of regulatory studies” at George Mason University? And is a spokesperson against Mr. Donaldson’s rather lame recommendations regarding corporate governance?
Could there be a worse spokesperson for maintaining the status quo in regard to “solutions for poorly performing boards?” Mrs. Gramm sat on an Enron board that blithely approved a staggering number of off balance sheet debt vehicles that admitted felon Andrew Fastow engineered to disguise Enron’s foreboding debt load, approved the clear conflict of interest that allowed Mr. Fastow to become enriched from such off balance sheet investments while he was Enron’s CFO, sat on Enron’s board (and was well compensated for doing so) while her husband — former Texas Senator Phil Gramm — was receiving campaign contributions from Enron and its upper management, and sold over a quarter of million dollars of Enron stock before the scandal broke.
My sense is that Mrs. Gramm’s above quote just might make it into the hands of the plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing Enron’s board and its insurers for billions.
Update: Barry Ritholtz over at The Big Picture is even more incredulous than me over this.
Update II: Just for clarification: I tend to agree with Ms. Gramm’s position that less government regulation of corporate governance is generally better than more. But I just don’t think she should be out front for that position on this particular issue. Her Enron legacy is serious baggage.