Does Romney Own Your Vote?
I don't ask this as a hypothetical. You see, a company owned by the Romney family may own the machine on which you cast your ballot:
Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of ( Read more... )
Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of ( Read more... )
Romney himself has some money in an investment fund that his son's shop, Solamere, manages. That fund makes direct investments in companies and other investment funds, as directed by Solamere. It appears that Solamere has elected to invest in an HIG fund. Like Solamere, HIG forms and operates investment funds, but its funds focus on making direct investments in companies. HIG appears to have caused one of its investment funds to make an investment in Hart Intercivic. In connection with that investment, HIG has likely appointed members of its management team to Hart Intercivic's board, but that team likely plays a limited role with respect to Hart Intercivic's day-to-day affairs and has fiduciary duties at least two levels deep - first to the company itself, and then to investors in the HIG fund that has invested in it.
It's not even clear, from what's been presented, that the Solamere fund with Romney's money has invested in the HIG fund with the investment in Hart Intercivic. Given the dot-connecting problems in the OP (confusing an investment through a fund with an investment in the investment managers of the funds), I'm inclined to suspect that no one has any evidence that there is a "direct line" between Romney and Hart Intercivic. Both Solamere and HIG likely operate several different funds, so absent a competent evaluation of relevant evidence, there's just as much reason to suspect that there is no such line.
But you're right that the HIG funds have probably made tons of other investments. They likely have tons of investors, as well. Romney's indirect interest in Hart Intercivic is likely minute.
Reply
One might own, for example, hundreds of keys. It's only the one that fits the lock to the vault that matters should that vault get robbed, especially if you own nothing in the vault.
Reply
One might own, for example, hundreds of keys. It's only the one that fits the lock to the vault that matters should that vault get robbed, especially if you own nothing in the vault.
Except that's not how indirect minority ownership of a corporation works.
Reply
"Romney part-owner in voting machines that swung his election" fits that rule of thumb very nicely. One can get into the nitty-gritty details of his and his family's ownership without detracting from the shock value of the headline itself.
As a friend once put it: "It's not how long it is; it's how long you make them think it is. It's all marketing."
Reply
I appreciate that this is the point you're trying to make. I'm saying that saying that Romney's relationship with Hart Intercivic is identical to the relationship an oil-industry regulator might have if he happened to have a 401(k) invested in a mutual fund that's permitted to invest and actually invested in Chevron.
"Romney part-owner in voting machines that swung his election" fits that rule of thumb very nicely. One can get into the nitty-gritty details of his and his family's ownership without detracting from the shock value of the headline itself.
I think it probably suffices to say that I disagree that your "rule of thumb," which would appear to be designed to minimize unexpected political flak that could be caused by the day-to-day activities of government employees with otherwise perfectly good intentions, is appropriate to apply here. If anything, it seems more like a concession to (and implicit criticism) of the kind of breathless, conspiracy-insinuating media coverage that outlets (and you) use to attract attention.
So, basically, you're faulting Romney for permitting you to portray what he's done in a negative light, while you're busy portraying what he's done in a negative light. Isn't this what we call "spin?" And isn't the appropriate response to this kind of contentless criticism to return to first principles and ask, "What is really wrong here?"
So let's try to push this conversation further in that direction. Above, I mentioned an "oil-industry regulator" who could be accurately described as a "part-owner" in a company that he's partly responsible for regulating. Is there something actually wrong with his relationship to Chevron? Or would you tend to argue (as I think would be reasonable) that: he's just participating in a 401(k) plan with a bunch of mutual funds; most mutual funds do not operate under industry-specific restrictions that would capture the potential "conflicts" specific to the oil-industry regulator (so the regulator doesn't have many alternatives for investment); in any event mutual funds tend to operate independently of the specific concerns of their shareholders; and there's no reason to suspect the the regulator stands, or even could stand, to profit especially from the way he regulates.
Reply
The fact that this country has for too long entirely operated a revolving door between the players and the umpires should stick in the craw of any concerned citizen. Putting a stop to even tertiary financial interests between the public and private sector should be the first step to restoring public trust.
(It further irritates me that this might be quasi-intentional, that our retirement accounts depend upon something other than endogenous funding. Market activity should have no bearing whatsoever on one's primary source of post-employment support. Ah, but that's another rant.)
. . . your "rule of thumb," which would appear to be designed to minimize unexpected political flak that could be caused by the day-to-day activities of government employees with otherwise perfectly good intentions. . .
It is exactly that. However, it still works for those seeking political office. Those who do not immediately distance their investments and business interests from the public office they seek should be held in deep suspicion. Even the simple refusal to divest should be grounds for severe and life-interrupting investigation. Just my opinion, of course.
Reply
Leave a comment