The ProJo’s Mike Stanton helps to narrow the focus on the Beacon imbroglio to the Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s involvement:

The report also focused on efforts by Beacon’s then-CEO, Joseph A. Solomon, to solicit campaign contributions for Whitehouse’s Senate campaign. From May 27, 2005, to June 30, 2005, the report says, 14 Beacon employees, board members and related consultants gave $15,600 to Whitehouse.
“Based on discussions with several of the donors, Solomon offered to personally reimburse them for their donations, and two employees told us that they accepted his offer and were reimbursed,” the report said.
Reimbursing contributions is illegal. A Beacon spokesman said last night that the company learned of the contributions last summer, and referred the matter to the Federal Elections Commission and the Rhode Island State Police.
During the same period, the state’s auditors also found e-mails among Whitehouse, Dufault and Beacon executives discussing pending Beacon legislation at the Rhode Island State House. As an aide to then-Gov. Bruce Sundlun in the early 1990s, Whitehouse had helped reform Rhode Island’s troubled workers’ compensation system, resulting in the creation of Beacon.
The e-mails “appeared to provide the candidate with possible material for a commentary in favor of the Beacon-proposed legislation,” the report says….Beacon later asked Whitehouse to hold off, and no commentary was published.
Whitehouse told The Journal last night that he had asked Solomon to organize a fundraiser, but that Solomon instead collected checks. Whitehouse said it was “unfortunate” — and he was unaware — that any donors had been reimbursed.

Regardless of whether or not Whitehouse was aware of how Solomon rounded up the cash, the fact is that Whitehouse was clearly willing to help promote Beacon and a close reading of some of the emails excerpted in the report (go to pages 296-7) reveal a possible quid pro quo. Whitehouse was prepared to advocate for Beacon by submitting a commentary to the ProJo. Further, the emails give strong evidence that the potential commentary piece was actually “ghost-written” by Beacon and Guy Dufault: Whitehouse just needed to put his name on it. However, for reasons explained in the emails excerpted in the report, Whitehouse ultimately did not submit a piece to the Journal. Thus, there is no conclusive evidence that a quid pro quo was exercised even if the intent seemed to be there.
The summary of the pertinent emails is in the extended section of this post.

During the period 6/16/2005 and 6/23/2005, we found several Emails between Solomon, a vice president, the owner of Cornerstone and the candidate {Senator, then-candidate, Sheldon Whitehouse-ed.} which appeared to provide the candidate with possible material for a commentary in favor of the Beacon-proposed legislation. On 6/16/2005, Solomon wrote to the candidate and provided documents which he claimed, “address the ‘lowest possible price’ concern.”
On 6/16/2005, the candidate replied to Solomon and stated, “[The owner of Cornerstone] {Guy Dufault–ed.} said he’d draft something for me to look at, and I’m not sure what your key issues are in all of this. There is the ‘lowest rates’ issue, the out of state business issue, the mutual fund issue (what does this do to for-profit status?), the NCCI issue, the board changes (BM or just the sub?) and the general great job done point. I need some focus. Thanks.” Solomon forwarded this response to the owner of Cornerstone on 6/17/2005.
On 6/22/2005, a vice president sent the candidate an Email with a three-page document, written in the first person, but for which the author is not identified; it appears to be a letter or statement in support of the Beacon-supported legislation. In his Email, the vice president wrote, “please accept this rough draft for your consideration.”
On 6/23/2005, the same vice president sent another Email to the candidate and stated, “before you submit anything to the Journal–we may have hit a snag at the state house. Inexplicably, the Speaker put the bill over until Friday. This, of course, limits the availability of a veto override. [Solomon] is to meet with the speaker at some time tonight. he is here now…just wanted to give you the heads up before you submit anything. We’re worried about some kind of deal, thus the delay…as always, thanks for the support.
Later on in the day on 6/23/2005, the vice president sent the candidate another Email and copied Solomon and the owner of Cornerstone. In the subject line, he wrote, “I just spoke to [a Beacon board member], can you hold off on the commentary piece until we know the date of the override? Thanks so much.”
An Internet search for news stories on or shortly after 6/23/2005 did not identify statements made by the candidate related to Beacon.