Mitt Romney is again coming under fire for his financial disclosures (or lack thereof), this time by the Obama campaign and the Washington Post.
Over at WaPo, Tom Hamburger tracks the obscure disclosure loophole that has allowed Romney to keep most of his financial information private (or secret, if you want to be like that):
In 48 accounts from Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded in Boston, Romney declined on his financial disclosure forms to identify the underlying assets, including his holdings in a company that moved U.S. jobs to China and a California firm once owned by Bain that filed for bankruptcy years ago and laid off more than 1,000 workers.
Those are known only because Bain publicly disclosed them in government filings and on the Internet. But most of the underlying assets — the specific investments of Bain funds— are not known because Romney is covered by a confidentiality agreement with the company.
Several of Romney’s assets — including a large family trust valued at roughly $100 million, nine overseas holdings and 12 partnership interests— were not named initially on his disclosure forms, emerging months later when he agreed to release his tax returns.
The loophole is this: the Office of Government Ethics allows candidates to "postpone revealing underlying assets in investment accounts that have a legally binding confidentiality agreement," but a sitting president doesn't have to sell off assets under a conflict of interest requirement (cuz why?), meaning Romney can slip through both the campaign and a potential administration without revealing his confidential holdings with Bain Capital.
Andrea Saul, Romney's spokesperson, says Romney is in full compliance with the law, though in a nice Orwellian twist, adds that Romney doesn't know what's in the funds being kept private, as they are managed by a trust. But everybody's totally confident that the stuff they don't know about is being reported correctly.
If you're having deja vu, that's because we went through a similar cycle over Romney's tax releases during an early stage of the GOP primary. Romney weathered that, in part because the GOP constituency is A-OK with making money however you want to make it; Gingrich's attempts to criticize Romney were met with charges of apostasy, and he backed off. You might remember this:
The general electorate, however, will be considerably less understanding about > $100 million in undisclosed holdings, especially if they were earned through Bain Capital's strategy of savaging smaller companies and laying off employees.
And right on cue:
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina accused Romney of "exploiting a loophole in order to shield his assets and investments from public review" and holding his financial assets in a "black box."
In a statement, Messina also noted that "Romney's own father released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president. President Bush released his tax returns dating back to 1991. And President Obama released his returns dating back to 2000 when he ran for president." (via PBS)
Romney's camp continues to insist it has met the letter of the law, but doesn't seem to understand that it's not compliane with federal regulations that everybody's so concerned about, but vetting the financial status of a potential president, including how that candidate made his money. In short, it's the spirit of disclosure that counts here. Says Hamburger:
Several outside experts across the political spectrum, however, say Romney’s disclosure is the most opaque they have encountered, with some suggesting the filing effectively defeats the spirit of disclosure requirements.
“His approach turns the whole purpose of the ethics statute on its ear,” said Cleta Mitchell, a Republican lawyer who has represented dozens of candidates and officials in the disclosure process.
Romney squeaked through the Republican primary with a surprisingly scant amount of attention paid to the extent and sources of his wealth. That immunity won't last much longer.
Comments (1)