That doesn't make sense, given the number of public officials (from your president on down) who are wealthy, but don't keep their money/assets in a trust. There has to be another reason. . .it's one of the things I've been wondering about as well. The show hasn't given an answer yet; possibly they will eventually.
reply
share
BTWash11 (41)
7 years ago
You don't have to have one by law.
In theory, blind trusts are a sweet deal. The perfect blend of legislative aloofness and financial savvy, the construct has been routing potential conflicts of interest for America’s wealthy political elite since Lyndon B. Johnson. Almost every serious presidential candidate from Barack Obama to George Bush to Bill Clinton has had at least one blind trust at one point. When he became governor of Massachusetts in 2003, Romney set up two of them, for himself and his wife.
The advantages are clear: by giving up the right to personally manage their money, public officials can deflect any allegations of insider trading or crooked investments. It also allows a trustee to invest aggressively without facing lengthy disclosure procedures or risking political blowback.
But despite the perks and the recent press, only a few federal lawmakers actually have a blind trust. According to the Senate ethics committee, just 7 out of 100 U.S. Senators have gone through the approval process to set one up. In the House of Representatives, the percentage is even smaller. As of 2010, only 12 of the 435 members of the House had an official blind trust, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And those numbers haven’t changed much in the past decade.
The above is from a Fortune atricle. Uncommon but does exactly what the above poster replied.
reply
share