Does the presidential campaign contribution help Ken Lay to get away with what he did?

Ken Lay's Audacious Ignorance

Even if one of America's worst ex-CEOs beats the rap -- and he just might -- history's verdict will be harsh

The only remaining question of great consequence about Enron is whether its prime movers, Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling, will go to prison for their part in its transformation from icon of New Age corporate cool to synonym for Bubble Era greed and deceit. As the pair go on trial on Jan. 30 in Houston, it will be important to keep in mind that the jury's decision will serve only to fix criminal culpability. Even if Lay and Skilling are acquitted, the trial holds zero hope of redemption for Enron's Big Two. History's verdict is already in, and it is harsh: As two of the most inept executives in business history, Lay and Skilling are heavily to blame for the demise of a company that once employed 31,000 people and had a stock market value of $35 billion but which survives today in shriveled form under the protection of the bankruptcy code.

Source - Business Week (click here to read the rest of the story.)

A lot of people are talking about whether Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling will be founded guilty or not (and subsequently will be sent to prison), but I am personally interested in how Ken Lay's contribution to the 2000 US presidential campaign will affect the outcome of the trail. It is a well-known fact that Ken Lay was the biggest contributor of the campaign(and that led to de-regulation of energy price right after George W. Bush became the president). I wonder if it can still save him today; more specifically, can he get away with what he did because of the contribution he made back in 2000?