And here is the quandry - On one hand, candidates are expected to to put all their investments in a blind trust. Of course, they don't have to do that by law, but if they don't, then people raise questions as to whether they have a conflict of interest. On the other hand, if the blind trust contains investments in pornography, then people bring up the distasteful nature of the candidate's investments. Let me make this perfectly clear - There is absolutely no indication that the Romneys knew that any of their money was invested in a site that promoted sex trafficking. So why the hell is this news? See what I mean?NEW YORK (Reuters) - A blind trust in the name of Ann Romney, wife of Republican U.S. presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, was an investor in a fund run by Goldman Sachs Group Inc that had invested in a media company which critics say facilitates sex trafficking. While there is no suggestion the Romneys knew about the investment, the disclosure highlights the difficulty for politicians and their families when they invest in blind trusts that are supposed to protect them from conflicts of interest and ethical questions.
I believe that a candidate running for office should put his money into a trust, but I also believe that a candidate should be able to put his money into a trust that is not blind, so that he or she is able to have some control over what is invested in his or her name.
To me, this makes sense. What about you?
Article is here.