Mitt Romney’s campaign released details of his wealth this week in a personal financial disclosure report filed with the Federal Election Commission his worth is somewhere between $190 million to $250 million. But that’s not the story, we are all well aware that Mitt Romney is a wealthy person and it doesn’t matter nor should it matter when running for office.
What I found interesting is Mitt’s portfolio and his discussion about blind trusts. The AP reports that Mitt currently has investments with companies involved with embryonic stem cells and companies with business ties to Iran.
The trustee for the Romney assets, R. Bradford Malt, said this week he has managed the blind trust without any direction from Romney. But he said he has tried to sell any stock in companies whose activities conflict with Romney’s public stands.
To that end, Malt said, he sold shares of stock in French and Italian energy companies that had business ties to Iran.
Romney’s blind trust, however, still owns $50,000 to $100,000 in stock in China Petroleum & Chemical, which has been negotiating a multimillion dollar deal to explore an Iranian oil field.
Romney’s blind trust also has $100,000 to $250,000 in stock in Novo Nordisk, a pharmaceutical and health care company that conducts research on embryonic stem cells. The blind trust of Romney’s wife, of which Malt is also a trustee, invests in a fund that has stock in Millipore Corp., which provides stem cell lines to researchers.
The French and Italian energy companies were Total and Eni SpA respectively, each do business with Iran. These investments were not sold until recently and were reported in his 2006/2007 filing. Axis of evil, when was that? 2003?
But let’s look into that a bit further. The blind trust was run without any direction from Mitt Romney. Interesting, while Mitt was running against Ted Kennedy he offered the following (via the Globe):
“The blind trust is an age-old ruse,” Romney told the Boston Globe in October of that year. “You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.”
Question. Since Mitt obviously knew his way around setting up a blind trust. Why not give instructions to not invest in companies who work with terrorist nations. If he’s against embryonic stem cells, why not provide instructions to not invest in companies involved in that research. It just adds a new level to the flip flop.
…that Mitt is a flip-flopper in every aspect of his professional life. Someday, one piece of straw will break the back of Mitt’s campaign.
The significance is highlighting what Mitt is really about. First you have his flip flop statements, but now over and above so you that his financial investments. He’s pro-choice one day now when running for president he’s now a staunch conservative. He takes no action when setting up his blind trust, why? He knows his way around setting blind trusts, he even called Kennedy out on it. Is it just further evidence of this flip flopping positions.
his words against him. The merits of the issue itself may be snore fest but it is good to catch them in rhetorical contradictions. This would be useful to Giuliani or McCain to use in a debate.
The stem cell debate didn’t erupt until 2005.
<
p>
Should the manager have sold off the assets, based on Mitt’s stated stance? Yes, just like he did with the energy companies; however, the reputation of those companies were as medical supply and research – until the stem cell debate really exploded in 2005, how would the fund manager have known?
<
p>
The fact that it was sold off in time for the 2006 report indicates that the manager made the right decision when he bacame aware of the issue.
<
p>
Personally, I always thought it was unfair to slam Ann Romney about her donation to Planned Parenthood – if you’re pro-life, why wouldn’t you donate to contraception for young girls? Especially in Mass. where the Democratic Legislature wouldn’t allow contraceptives to be covered in Mass. until 2002?
<
p>
BTW – please – when will you be commenting on Brownback’s sleaziness that blew up in his face? Or Guiliani’s terrorism program? Or will you be exclusively Mitt all the time?
Try 2001 — http://archives.cnn….
<
p>
Mitt’s hypocrisy is well documented, this is merely more evidence.
<
p>
Re: Brownback’s sleaziness or Guiliani on terrorism, I’m all ears. Whaddaya got?
<
p>
Peter,
<
p>
The stem cell debate may have re-erupted in 2005, but it began as early as 2001 (Bush angers conservatives by supporting limited research on stem cells), if not earlier. This brings us back to the question: If Mitt really is so against stem cell research, why didn’t he set up the trust to reflect this?
I was one of about seven that attended.
<
p>
At the time, ACT (Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester) merely wanted a shield – no money – which would guarantee that the work they were pursuing with stem call research and cloning would not be made illegal in the future, as they were having trouble attracting investment. California had already enacted such a law, and they wanted protection here, or they would be forced to consider moving there.
<
p>
Pro-life Finneran shot them down cold. Zero debate beyond that one sad briefing. Of course, that was before the Biotech Council expended $800,000 to open his eyes.
<
p>
Despite the fact that Mass. was a sub-rosa hotbed of stem cell research, it was not an issue on Beacon Hill.
<
p>
When 2005 rolled around, thre were over 100 at each briefing – and the technology and ability to manipulate blastocysts was four year more advanced as well. It was then that Romney got a briefing by the Harvard scientists, and it was that briefing that blew his mind.
<
p>
And as I said before, Seth, those companies were known for medical research in general – not specifically stem cell research.
…as bone marrow transplants for leukemia are actually a form of stem cell treatment.
<
p>
…the trustee of a trust has a fiduciary obligation to try to maximize the income/assets of the trust. If the trust is a blind trust, the beneficiary of the trust has no idea where the trust’s principal is laid. That is the entire point of a blind trust. If the trust’s trustor gives direction as to where the principal is to be laid or not to be, then it is not a blind trust.
<
p>
Regarding
<
p>
Why not give instructions to not invest in companies who work with terrorist nations.
<
p>
Simple. The US State Department categorizes what nations are “terrorist nations” on a yearly basis. How is a trustee supposed to deal with that? And how is a trustee supposed to determine what companies are “dealing with” “terrorist nations”? IBM dealt with Nazis during most of the American involvement in WWII through their Swiss subsidiary. Given that experience, how is a trust manager supposed to figure out what companies (or their sub-sub-subsidiaries) are dealing with so-called “terrorist nations” when the list changes annually?
<
p>
Be practical.
<
blockquote>”The blind trust is an age-old ruse,” Romney told the Boston Globe in October of that year. “You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.”
<
blockquote>