Talk:Solyndra loan controversy

Untitled

Removed link to Enron. This has nothing to do with Enron.

This is why Wikipedia is useless for "controversial" topics

This article reads like something you would see on foxnews.com and that was written by a member of the GOP or Tea Party. Right wing rubbish with nothing but weasel wording and carefully "parsed" links. You read this and you get more stupid about what's going on (which is probably its purpose.) 209.6.39.87 (talk) aka CallMeBC —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC).

Actually, the article does not cite Fox News at all. The article does cite the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, ABC News, and NBC News. If you would like to improve the article, please feel free to do so. This talk page is about suggestions on how to improve the article, so if you have any suggestions, please make your suggestion here, or just go and edit the article on your own - you don't need anyone's permission. Mk2z0h (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw absolutely nothing wrong with the article, it needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb but other than it adheres to wikis standards of posting facts.Ttummm21 (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's crap on a stick. And my being well familiar with how right wingers game Wikipedia, I can see plenty of red flags, even in the responses: did I complain that Fox News was cited? No, which makes the comment Actually, the article does not cite Fox News at all a weasel response. I had pointed out it reads like something that you would see on Fox News. I could have just as much said it reads like something that you would see on a right wing blog site. Indeed the first reference is to The Daily Caller, a right wing site founded by Tucker Carlson and former adviser to Dick Cheney, Neil Patel, and the second being to the misnamed "Reason" online magazine -- an antiscience, pro-business, supposedly libertarian "thing" (not a news outlet, not a real research source, just opinions, lots of them.)

Cherry-picked references aside, the main reason that this is a junk article is that there is no context whatsoever -- somebody comes here looking for more info, especially background stuff, about this supposed scandal won't learn: that Solyndra was just one of many of "green tech" businesses that got support from the Obama administration; that at the time the Solyndra got the loan guarantee, it was considered a legitimately innovative American company with a unique product in a fast growing global industry that many believed China would dominate with their lower costs, and any into the trade journals and newspapers from the time period will confirm this, but....none of those are referenced here; that the George Kaiser who comes across across as some sort of shady businessman in the Wikipedia article is in reality one of the top ranked philanthropists in this country, as well as one of the wealthiest people (making that $50,000 - $100,000 number pocket change), and that he has been a big solar advocate in general for a while; that the Obama administration wanted to discuss the potential long term benefits of investing in "green energy," he wanted feature some company involved in it, and it was just bad luck that company turned out to be Solyndra; and that as far as those emails go, they are from August 2009 -- go back and check the news archives for what was happening around then, especially in terms of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- Obama and his people had a lot on their plates and needed to get a lot of things done in hurry in terms of the economy.

The way to remedy this is to edit the article and include some non (your words) cherry picked references; don't just bash, assist. If you're not pleased with how the article reads, create content that speaks more realistically from your perspective. That's the beauty of this type of device (Wikipedia) - the ability to correct what you see as 'wrongs'. Rsleventhal (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I guarantee that the previous paragraph will have for the foreseeable future the best, most complete and most researched information in all of Wikipedia on the so-called "Solyndra Scandal". 209.6.39.87 (talk) aka CallMeBC —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC).

And yet, I don't see a single source referenced in your "well-researched" paragraph. If you have any specific changes you would like to make, please either post them for discussion or apply them to the article for further consideration. It's our job to objectively convey the facts concerning this event, not to write an apologia on behalf of the Obama administration. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please help improve the article by adding the information that you are referring to - just make sure that you cite your sources to back it up. Mk2z0h (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have zero interest in helping this Wikipedia article or any other beyond random complaints on discussion pages regarding especially poor content -- I've been involved in "controversial" articles in the past and it usually turned into nothing but time sucking warfare with deliberately dense or obstructive editors, anonymous IP's, puppet accounts, and even a hacker or two. If *you* genuinely want to "improve" the article, do your own research and sourcing -- I gave you enough easy to verify tips. But here is another: bring up Google; type in solyndra as the search term; ignore the search results, which will be dominated by recent stories and opinions; on the left side Google menu, under "Every thing," click on "Custom range"; select January 1, 2009 as your start date and December 31, 2010 as your end date and then click on the "Search" button below that. You should then get a bunch of filtered search results from all sorts of sources covering the tech, the loan guarantee and other financing, and the evolution of a once promising company to a failed IPO and warnings about its finances. Knock yourself out. 209.6.39.87 (talk) aka CallMeBC —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

This from an anonymous IP. If you are going to complain about anonymity how about giving us your real name. You will find my own real name at the end of this comment. In any case, it's not December 31, 2010. It's developments since then that have brought notability to this topic.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase a different Internet truism, on Wikipedia, nobody knows you're a dog. If the purpose of an encyclopedia is to give the curious an accurate, balanced and neutral summary on a particular topic, then this article is an utter failure as is. If you and others like you fancies yourselves as responsible and diligent encyclopedia editors, then you would make the effort to make sure that the curious can visit here and come away more knowledgeable rather than more confused. 209.6.39.87 (talk) aka CallMeBC —Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

I have a real problem with the sentence "The California Democratic Party was listed as a creditor in the bankruptcy filings." at the end of the first paragraph. This is a small tidbit of information, the significance of which is not well known, and, from the reporting thus far, seems more likely than not to be insignfigant. The last sentence of an intro paragraph is supposed to be a jump of to the rest of the article and to set the tone. This clearly comes across as a rethorical trick by someone with a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.204.10.208 (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am also concerned that there is no reference to, or info about, the Department of Energy program and info about where the additional funds came from in the stimulus legislation and info like how many companies or entities benefited, what the average loan guarantee amounted to, and the track record of these loans (in other words, how many companies succeeded- this is important for context as i believe the number was something like 140 companies and 1 failure (solyndra). We also need to provide more things like this for context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.204.10.208 (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I found a great source that answeres some of my questions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/five-myths-about-the-solyndra-collapse/2011/09/14/gIQAfkyvRK_blog.html My colleagues Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig have obtained e-mails showing that the White House pressed the Office of Management and Budget to hurry up in reviewing the deal (note, however, that this only came after the Energy Department had approved the loan), even as OMB officials voiced concern about being rushed.

Does that prove the White House engaged in cronyism, shoveling cash toward a political ally? Not necessarily. Democrats have pointed out that Solyndra’s loan process was initiated by the Bush administration and that many key investors were Republicans. Still, there could have been other reasons the deal was hastened. As a former Clinton energy aide stressed to me, it was arguably a mistake to sell the loan guarantees as job-creating stimulus (the program was expanded as part of the 2009 stimulus bill). “It means you try to force huge amounts of money quickly through processes that aren’t quite ready yet,” the aide said. “It’d be better to have a calmer, steadier source of funding.”

2) Solyndra proves that energy-loan guarantees are a flop. Not exactly. The Energy Department’s loan-guarantee program, enacted in 2005 with bipartisan support, has backed nearly $38 billion in loans for 40 projects around the country. Solyndra represents just 1.3 percent of that portfolio — and, as yet, it’s the only loan that has soured. Other solar beneficiaries, such as SunPower and First Solar, are still going strong. Meanwhile, just a small fraction of loan guarantees go toward solar. The program’s biggest bet to date is an $8.33 billion loan guarantee for a nuclear plant down in Georgia. Improper political influence in the process is disturbing, but, at least so far, Solyndra appears an exception, not a rule. (That said, the GAO and others have pointed out potential pitfalls and the need for stricter oversight in the loan program.)

and: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/exactly-happened-goverment-solyndra-loan-212111448.html

The top Energy Department and Office of Management and Budget officials at the panel said the Bush administration had also looked into giving the company money and that all such investments are risks. Zients, of the Office of Management and Budget, stressed that an independent credit rating agency and experts had examined the company before it was approved for the loan. "Some of America's most sophisticated professional investors collectively invested nearly a billion dollars in the company after conducting extensive due diligence of their own," Jonathan Silver of the Energy Department testified.

and: (Id like to see if someone could vet this info froma better site) http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment. March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.204.10.208 (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a POV tag. There are so many blatant POV issues that have been brought up in this section. For one, why does the article omit any mention of Solyndra's loan under the Bush administration (which wanted to approve it), or that the Energy Policy Act (signed into law by Bush) enabled this loan? There's pretty well-sourced information at http://mediamatters.org/research/201109190020 in addition to links others have posted in this section. I started trying to make the lead at least a bit more reasonable, but realized I'd have to practically rewrite the entire section and gave up... It reads more like a right-wing blog indictment of Obama, with the fact that Solyndra is involved (despite being the subject of the article) being secondary. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

promise of 4,000 new jobs.

The entire justification for the loan was that it was supposed to create 4,000 new jobs. To remove this info from the article does not make any sense. I have put the info back into the article. Please do not remove it again. Mk2z0h (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Says who? The claim that the purpose was to create 4,000 jobs is disputed, un-encyclopedic, full of weasel words and not supported by reliable sources. (It's not even particularly well-supported by the sources that are cited, unreliable as they are.) I've removed the text (again) because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you'd like to re-write that section of the lead in order to make it encyclopedic, please be bold. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a citation about the 4,000 jobs from ABC News. Mk2z0h (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The article cites three separate sources for the 4,000 jobs. This was the entire justification for the loan. To not include this in the article is absurd. Mk2z0h (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Mk2z0h -- you don't help your case with hyperbole such as "This was the entire justification for the loan." You don't need a degree in political science to understand other reasons why Democrats might support solar energy.Msalt (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the edit history and other comments that I'm not the only who thinks you are just soapboxing your politics here. Consensus does not support your repeated ignoring of the requirement of the neutral point of view using unreliable sources. Please stop. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Amen.@Karimarie.

--Andy0093 (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone keeps removing the claim about the 4,000 jobs, despite the ABC News citation. Mk2z0h (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim you keep injecting into the article is not verifiable given the source used. An "estimate" (which is what ABC refers to in the article) does not and can never imply a "promise". And even if "estimate" implies "promise", it is not supported by the source, making your claim original research. The issue is not the 4,000 jobs claim itself; noting that Solyndra had estimated the project would help it create 4,000 jobs probably satisfies the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.

However, what does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion is the use of weasel words to advance a political view. I understand that your personal political views may result in you not liking the President very much. That's OK. But Wikipedia requires articles be written with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia exists to document facts, not judge those facts or persuade our readers to accept a certain opinion of those facts. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 13:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Kari, I don't know the details of the dispute you are discussing here, but I find it unhelpful to use so many ad hominem attacks in your statements. It doesn't lay the ground for your request to remove the neutrality tag. Msalt (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that since the source uses the word "estimate," it would violate wikipedia policy to use the word "promise." Stick to what the source says, not what you want people to think it says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.77.108 (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Soapboxing

First we had people citing right wing sites, now we have people citing Media Matters and Think Progress. Lets try and keep the sources that are NPOV. Lets try to make this article as neutral as possible since it is a touchy and current topic.

--Andy0093 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We can remove the external link to Media Matters, but where is the Think Progress citation? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the ThinkProgress citation was removed at some point along with the citations of the right wing blog. This article has improved dramatically in the past few days.

--Andy0093 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Reason magazine was named one of the 50 best magazines in 2003 and 2004 by the Chicago Tribune.[1][2] Mk2z0h (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is in the White House press pool. Mk2z0h (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Reason is a libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation. They're clearly pushing a libertarian point of view. The Daily Caller leans to the right and I wouldn't say it has established credibility yet since it has only been around for a short time. They're should be less issues with citations from the The Daily Caller though. Reason should probably not be cited for an article like this.

--Andy0093 (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Obama "relationship"

Why does the article start out by making it clear that the Bush administration started the selection and approval of the loans, but then it includes a whole section of weak links to the Obama administration? That's just an opportunity for conservatives to document innuendo.

Solyndra met with White House officials? I should hope so! They gave money to Obama's campaign? So? Did they give to McCain's? That happens all the time. They spent a lot of money lobbying? I'm sure they lobbied both sides. How is that even related to Obama? And a solar power company's owners are rich Democrats who contributed to the Democratic presidential campaign? What a shock! --Tysto (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying, that because energy companies always donate to democrats that Solyndra's donations should not be mentioned here? Truthsort (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't pretend that that section is neutral. It might be appropriate to have a section on Solyndra's political connections in general, but having a section specifically for documenting every vague link to Obama violates NPOV. --Tysto (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd think that there would also be a source or two pointing out that there are much easier ways to get $50,000-$100,000 in campaign contributions than to loan a company $535,000,000. Talk about ridiculously low returns to scale. $50-$100K can be very easily raised without jumping through a bunch of (imaginary) hoops. Fairly obvious stuff. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Where was the oversight and due diligence?

The article should make clear that the Obama administration continued to encourage giving Solyndra taxpayer money even after it had defaulted on its $535 million loan. And that the DOE had been warned that Solyndra's restructuring might be illegal and should be cleared by DOJ. However, DOE officials moved ahead with the restructuring, with a new deal that honored financial creditors ahead of the US government = taxpayer money if the company defaulted. PV market prices started dropping precipitously in 2009 long before the deal was put together, as shown here. The deal was dependent on government support which was lobbied heavily and with improper due diligence. This raises serious questions about government ability to pick and choose industries and performed proper due diligence.

Thin film, USD

2006 3.00

2007 3.25

2008 3.00

2009 1.65

2010 1.58

2011 1.07

Danleywolfe (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a few reliable sources for your suggestions? Please keep in mind that this article is about a current event and one that is fairly controversial at that, so there's a higher standard of proof for inclusion than there might be for some other articles. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A loan guarantee and a loan

A loan guarantee and a loan are the two material things that occurred. They are not the same thing. The article should make sure that these two different things are clear in each paragraph, and emphasize the difference. The media has so far (massively) failed to do so. The differentiation is one one of the strengths of the encyclopedia: basic facts. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. The distinction is a trifle complicated to explain since the loan came from the Federal Financing Bank, which is a bank owned by the government. But the loan *could* have come from a private bank, which would have been the same.

• It might also be useful also to add a more comprehensive background on the loan guarantee program itself. The Bloomberg Government report has a lot of material. Among other items, the losses from this loan guarantee program have not exhausted the budgeted loan reserve, and are not likely to.
• Also, I garbled the paragraph on Kaiser while adding recent information from the House committee e-mail dump.

Lots of work, and I can't imagine when I will be able to do it. So I should shut up now. M.boli (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing neutrality tag

I would like to ask if there is consensus at this time to remove the disputed neutrality tag? The article has improved a lot, and it is probably no longer necessary to have it at the top of the article. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't think the text is stable enough to remove the tag. IMO we should wait and see how the editing shakes out first. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

- I agree that this still is not a balanced article in terms of research, but reflects the political tenor of today. The 1705 loan guarantee program provided loan guarantees to Solyndra and Beacon, and like other bank and government commercial lending programs assumes a default rate as normal and expected. In establishing the 1705 loan guarantee program, for example, the Office of Management and Budget predicted and budgeted that the $2.5 billion in loan guarantees will experience a default rate of 12.85 percent. (See: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Supplemental) The two prominent defaults (to date) are Solyndra and Beacon: Out of a total $35.9 billion DOE loan guarantee portfolio, Solyndra received a $535 mil guarantee (1.5% of total) and Beacon Power Corp received a $43 mil guarantee (.1%) The Federal government can expect to receive a portion of the loans back. Defaults from Solyndra and Beacon after some funds are recouped are therefore likely to be in the 1% range, or less than one tenth the expected and budgeted-for default rate. Aseal (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I, also, have problems with removing the neutrality tag. No evidence has surfaced that anybody in the Obama administration did anything scandalous. That latest WaPo article that people want to quote (instead of summarize) says, in sum, that there were people in the administration who were worried about appearances and public relations, and the failure of Solyndra was perceived to be a public relations problem. In addition to being a big "so what", this is *far* removed in time, place, and focus from the original accusations of corruption, and it is hard to see what is encyclopedia-worthy about it.

Thus an NPOV encyclopedia article on "the Solyndra loan controversy" might plausibly focus on the who, what, when, where, and how of the controversy. The actions of the Obama administration play a minor part in that story, a few paragraphs. The rest is pretty sordid, but that's where most of the content lies. M.boli (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I too see evidence of continued non-neutrality. Msalt (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does an accurate job of reporting what the reliable sources say, and that's as neutral as any article could possibly be. ThFSPB (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Still any reason for the tag?William Jockusch (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Party as creditor

Buried in the middle of the "useless" thread above was a useful comment from an IP user that I think deserves more attention:

I have a real problem with the sentence "The California Democratic Party was listed as a creditor in the bankruptcy filings." at the end of the first paragraph. This is a small tidbit of information, the significance of which is not well known, and, from the reporting thus far, seems more likely than not to be insignfigant. The last sentence of an intro paragraph is supposed to be a jump of to the rest of the article and to set the tone. This clearly comes across as a rethorical trick by someone with a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.204.10.208 (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. The source -- a less reputable and openly biased newspaper, The Washington Examer -- does not support the claim. It says that the Democratic Party of California is listed on a chart as one of many creditors in the bankruptcy, but that no one can understand why, and that the only apparent connection is that is the reverse -- that Solyndra donated $7,500 to the Democratic Party at one point. This makes the statement it sources completely misleading -- says that the Obama Administration illegally pushed through a restructuring plan that moved creditors, including the Democratic Party, ahead of taxpayers as creditors.

I'm frankly shocked that anyone would write something so misleading and biased here, basically flat-out false. I'm removing it immediately.Msalt (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that this article is about living persons, we need to have reliable sources such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. Blogs from random people and other such sources do not even come close to being close to meeting such criteria. ThFSPB (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Restructure loan section

The loan section has gotten very unencyclopedic, turning into a chronology of successive news sources. Integrating this information is the essence of an encyclopedia, so I restructured it by the chronology of the actual events (preliminary approval, pressure to finish, final approval, restructuring, bankruptcy, criticism). I also reread the sources and brought the narratative text closer to the source and more NPOV. Msalt (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU to Msalt for reorganizing this article. It has narrative structure now. Duplications have been removed. Similar parts of the story have been gathered together. Much better. M.boli (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tag remains necessary for article created by and largely written by sockpuppets of banned User:Grundle2600

This article was created by and largely written by sockpuppets of banned User:Grundle2600.
The identified and blocked sockpuppets are:

• Mk2z0h
• ThFSPB
• 997sqg
• Trzl23
• Punch a higher floor!
• VhDqDlwV2L
• Magenta 447

Other unidentified and unblocked Grundle2600 sockpuppets may have edited the article and this talk page.
16 of the article's 40 current References were added by sockpuppets of Grundle2600, as was the entire External links section.
47% of the current text is based on references added by sockpuppets of Grundle2600:

Solyndra loan controversy

The Solyndra loan controversy is a political controversy involving U.S. President Barack Obama's administration's authorization of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra Corporation in 2009 as part of a program to spur alternative energy growth.^[1][2] Solyndra and the White House had originally estimated that this government guarantee of Solyndra's financing would help to create 4,000 new jobs.^[1] In early September 2011 the company ceased all business activity, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and laid off nearly all of its employees.^[3][4]

Critics claimed that the Obama administration had unduly influenced awarding the loan guarantee.^[5][6]

Loan approval

The White House and Solyndra had estimated that the loan would help to create 4,000 new jobs.^[1]

In August 2009, an Energy Department stimulus adviser, Steve Spinner, pushed for a quicker final decision on the loan, though he had recused himself from the approval decision itself because his wife's law firm had done work for the company.^[17] According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration tried to rush federal reviewers to approve the loan so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s factory.^[18]

The White House scheduled a press event for September 4 and federal reviewers gave final approval on September 2.^[19]

In February, 2011, Solyndra restructured its loans with government approval, in an attempt to keep the company afloat. Two funds (Argonaut Ventures LLP and Madrone Partners LP) invested an additional $69 million as part of the restructuring, and Solyndra's debt to the government was subordinated to this new investment. Assistant Treasury Secretary Mary Miller wrote emails at the time stating that this subordination might be illegal, and should be cleared with the Justice Department first, but Energy Department officials proceeded based on an internal legal opinion by the loan program's lawyers.^[17]

Bankruptcy

On August 31, 2011 Solyndra announced it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, laying off approximately 1100 employees, and shutting down all operations and manufacturing. Approximately 100 employees were kept on, for periods ranging from a week or two to several months or more. These employees were involved in filing the bankruptcy paperwork, continuing to ship product to fulfill existing orders, plant security, and related winding-up tasks.^[25]

After the bankruptcy, the New York Times reported that government auditors and industry analysts had faulted the Obama administration for failing to properly evaluate the company's business proposals, as well as for failing to take note of troubling signs which were already evident. In addition, Frank Rusco, a program director at the Government Accountability Office, had found that the preliminary loan approval had been granted before officials had completed the legally mandated evaluations of the company.^[26]

In addition, according to the Washington Post, the Obama administration continued to allow Solyndra to receive taxpayer money even after it had defaulted on its $535 million loan.^[27] Department of Energy spokesman Damien LaVera said, “Ultimately, the choice was between imminent liquidation or giving the company and its workers a fighting chance to succeed.”

Investigation

On October 6, 2011, Jonathan Silver, the director of the Department of Energy's loan office, stepped down to become a distinguished visiting fellow at Third Way; Department of Energy officials stated that the decision was unrelated to the controversy, since Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, has accepted responsibility for the Solyndra decisions.^[29][30]

The Washington Post reported that Solyndra had used some of the loan money to purchase new equipment which it never used, and then sold that new equipment, still in its plastic wrap, for pennies on the dollar. Former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn told the Washington Post, "After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right... Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy."^[31]

Relationships with the Obama administration

After Solyndra's bankruptcy, it was revealed that the company had spent a large sum of money on lobbying and that Solyndra executives had many meetings with White House officials.^[5][6]

The New York Times quoted Shyam Mehta, a senior analyst at GTM Research, as saying "There was just too much misplaced zeal at the Department of Energy for this company." Among 143 companies that had expressed an interest in getting a loan guarantee, Solyndra was the first one to get approval and received the largest loan.^[26]

The company reportedly spent nearly $1.8 million on lobbying during the period the loan guarantee was under review. Tim Harris, the CEO of Solopower, a different solar panel company which had obtained a $197 million loan guarantee, told the New York Times that his company had never considered spending any money on lobbying, and that "It was made clear to us early in the process that that was clearly verboten... We were told that it was not only not helpful but it was not acceptable."^[26]

Federal investigation

In September 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department and the FBI launched investigations, searching the computers and files of the company's founder Chris Gronet and CEO Brian Harrison^[36][37]

References

1. ^ a b c Solar Energy Company Touted By Obama Goes Bankrupt, ABC News, August 31, 2011
2. ^ Obama's Crony Capitalism, Reason, September 9, 2011
3. ^ McGrew, Scott (September 2, 2011). "Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy". NBC News.
4. ^ Solyndra files for bankruptcy, looks for buyer. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved: September 20, 2011.
5. ^ a b Obama fundraiser linked to loan program that aided Solyndra, Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2011
6. ^ a b Solyndra Spent Liberally to Woo Lawmakers Until the End, Records Show, New York Times, September 16, 2011

17. ^ a b [1] Solyndra loan deal: Warning about legality came from within Obama administration], Washington Post, October 7, 2011
18. ^ Solyndra loan: White House pressed on review of solar company now under investigation, Washington Post, September 13, 2011
19. ^ Carol D. Leonnig and Joe Stephens, Solyndra employees: Company suffered from mismanagement, heavy spending Washington Post September 22, 2011

25. ^ McGrew, Scott. "Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy". NBC Bay Area. Retrieved 2011-09-02.
26. ^ a b c In Rush to Assist a Solar Company, U.S. Missed Signs, New York Times, September 22, 2011
27. ^ Chu takes responsibility for a loan deal that put more taxpayer money at risk in Solyndra, Washington Post, September 29, 2011

29. ^ Miller, Greg (October 7, 2011). "Amid Solyndra controversy, head of federal loan program resigns". The Washington Post.

31. ^ Solyndra employees: Company suffered from mismanagement, heavy spending, Washington Post, September 20, 2011

36. ^ Feds Visit Homes of Solyndra CEO, Execs, ABC News, September 8, 2011
37. ^ Solyndra Loan: Now Treasury Dept. Is Launching Investigation, ABC News, September 8, 2011

External links

• Jon Stewart criticizes Obama White House On Solyndra, (with video from The Daily Show), NPR, September 16, 2011
• Obama's Solyndra scandal reeks of the Chicago Way, by John Kass, Chicago Tribune, September 18, 2011

• Remarks by the President on the Economy, Transcript of speech by President Obama at Solyndra on May 26, 2010, whitehouse.gov

Newross (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I knew the article was messy, but it's even worse than I imagined. Thanks for doing the work on this. I think we can start by removing the most obviously inappropriate content that Grundle added above (the WP:OR and non-RS, non-NPOV stuff). But the larger issue is that this is content fork of the slightly better-written Solyndra article. I suggest we begin a deletion discussion to merge whatever notable content that exists in this article back into the other article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion or merge. Reading through the entire thing, it's pretty clear that there's almost nothing worth salvaging that doesn't already exist in the other article (which also has a few POV problems, but nothing major). --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the tag. I did it on the basis of a discussion that had died out and was unaware of the Grundle issue at the time. In light of the lengthy above post and the Grundle issue, I agree the tag should remain for now.William Jockusch (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that much of the Grundle material should be rewritten. I just made a small start on this; is there a standard way to mark it as it is done?William Jockusch (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)