Does Romney Own Your Vote?

[peristaltor]

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

Comments

[oslo]

There's a lot about this story that doesn't add up - I think a more likely description of the arrangement is that Romney has an indirect investment in Hart Intercivic. Not a controlling interest, probably not even a particularly sizable one (they're probably one of many indirect investors). Just owning stock - like millions of Americans do through their 401(k)s.

The HIG/Romney connection isn't particularly surprising, either. I mean, HIG is (if I recall correctly) a Bain spin-off. There are a bunch of Bain spin-off shops like that.

[mahnmut]

Wait, you mean Romney is not arranging an elaborate plot to steal the election? But, but, Alex Jones was already preparing the tapes for his next documentary! WHY ARE YOU ROBBING US OF MELODRAMATIC MOVIE MATERIAL, DAMNYA?

Oh, did I mention you're also a No True Liberal??

[oslo]

That doesn't make any sense either. Bain and HIG are both PE firms. Here's probably how it works

[peristaltor]

As I said in the OP, it's the appearance of probably wrongdoing that matters here, not the hundreds of non-voting machine companies the PE might own.

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.

[oslo]

But the only way anything "appears" to be wrong here is if you completely misunderstand the relationship. Romney's "wrongdoing" amounts to the equivalent of holding stock in a 401(k), like I'd said.

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.

[peristaltor]

What's "wrong" is not what is wrong, but what appears to be wrong. Government employees have this rule of thumb called the NY Times headline: upon hearing of this or that project or program, what headline can be crafted to the most damning effect without lying about said program?

"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."

[oslo]

What's "wrong" is not what is wrong, but what appears to be wrong.

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

[peristaltor]

To your counter-example of the oil regulator: I for one would support completely disconnecting the retirement portfolio of a regulator to any and all regulated companies overseen by said regulator. First, any retirement plan that didn't allow regulators distance from their balliwick would by definition suck.

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