美国总统候选人缘何青睐盲目信托

    昨晚美国总统大选辩论上，两位竞选人辩论的重点将是外交政策，但如果米特•罗姆尼州长投资中国公司的话题再次被提及，观众们无需感到惊奇。10月16日的辩论中，罗姆尼与奥巴马就曾因这个话题唇枪舌战激辩了一番。

    当奥巴马总统质疑其竞争对手的海外投资时，罗姆尼州长在回答时使用了一个有钱人竞选时经常会使用的概念——盲目信托。

    从理论上来讲，盲目信托是好事。盲目信托将超越法制的阶级身份和善于理财的聪明头脑进行了完美的融合。自从林顿•B•约翰逊总统以来，这种策略一直被美国富有的政治精英用来规避利益冲突。从比尔•克林顿到乔治•布什，再到巴拉卡•奥巴马，几乎每一位总统选候选人，在某个时间点都至少有过一份盲目信托。2003年，当罗姆尼当选马萨诸塞州州长时，他为自己和妻子都设立了盲目信托。

    盲目信托的好处非常明显：通过授权其他人管理他们的资金，政府官员可以转移针对内幕交易或不正当投资的任何指控。此外，盲目信托还允许信托人进行大胆投资，还不必面对冗长的披露过程，也无需承担政治压力。

    尽管有特殊待遇和最近的媒体报道，但事实上，只有极个别美国立法者拥有盲目信托。据美国参议院道德委员会公布，100名美国参议员中，仅有7位通过批准流程，设立了盲目信托。而在众议院，拥有盲目信托的议员比例更少。据响应政治研究中心（Center for Responsive Politics）披露，截至2010年，众议院435名议员中，仅有12人拥有正式的盲目信托。而且，在过去几年中，这一比例并没有太大变化。

    选择盲目信托的人为什么这么少？其实，盲目信托看起来很简单，但实际上却是一种非常复杂和繁琐的理财工具。据美国世达律师事务所（Skadden Arps）的伦理律师肯尼斯•A•格罗斯称，盲目信托的启动成本就要高达数万美元，而设立和维护盲目信托通常是一个痛苦的过程。格罗斯为候选人办理盲目信托提供指导。他说道，通常情况下，盲目信托“只会让一个人的生活变得更加复杂。”

    首先，并非所有盲目信托真的是要进行盲目投资。通常，对于一位富人来说，盲目信托充其量也只能说是有些目光短浅。而这一点会带来政治影响。

    问问罗姆尼1994年前后都发生了些什么事就能明白这一点。有一则关于罗姆尼与泰德•肯尼迪竞选参议院席位的视频广泛流传。视频显示，罗姆尼把盲目信托称作是“老套的把戏。”

    当时，罗姆尼讽刺盲目基金的盲目性，称一名政客可以“给盲目信托制定规则”，规定在哪里投资，以及如何投资。

    此外，一旦设立了盲目信托，立法委员就不可能对其听之任之。2005年，美国参议院多数党领袖比尔•弗里斯特就成为此陷入过麻烦。当时，比尔•弗里斯特要求他的信托人卖掉价值1,000万美元的HCA公司股份。HCA是由其家人创办的一家医疗公司。而几天之后，该公司股票市值便狂跌十分之一。而讽刺的是，弗里斯特说他之所以想卖掉那些股份，目的是为了避免利益冲突。美国证券交易委员会（The Securities and Exchange Commission）对此事进行了调查，但最终放弃了正式起诉。但此事还是造成了巨大的政治影响，至于弗里斯特的基金在技术上是否具有盲目性，已经无关紧要。很明显，他知道，管理层并未将他在自己帮助成立的公司中的所有股份全部卖掉。

    而罗姆尼的大部分资产均与私募股权有关，大部分由其在贝恩资本（Bain Capital）的旧同事负责管理。虽然这并不是罗姆尼的错，但他肯定很清楚基金的动向，因为贝恩资本的战略经常被财经媒体广泛报道。

    卫理律师事务所（Wiley Rein LLP）律师罗伯特•L•沃克是美国参议院和众议院道德委员会的办公室主任。他认为，最主要的是：“公众不能对盲目信托机制抱有太大期望。”

    Tonight's presidential debate is meant to focus the candidates' attention on foreign policy, but don't be surprised if the subject of Gov. Mitt Romney's investments in Chinese companies comes up, as it did during a particularly heated moment during the Oct. 16 debate between the Republican candidate and President Barack Obama.

    When the president questioned his rival's investments abroad, Gov. Romney responded essentially by invoking a concept that frequently comes up when wealthy men and women run for office—the blind trust.

    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.

    Why so few takers? Blind trusts seem simple, but they're actually a complex and cumbersome financial instrument. Startup costs can easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars, says Kenneth A. Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden Arps who has helped candidates navigate the process, and they're generally a pain to create and maintain. Often, Gross says, with a blind trust, "You're just making your life much more complicated for no reason."

    For starters, not every blind trust is actually blind. Often, a wealthy person's blind trust might be described as at best slightly myopic. That can bring political repercussions.

    Just ask Romney circa 1994. A much-circulated video of the candidate during his bid for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat shows Romney calling blind trusts an "age old ruse."

    A politician can "give a blind trust rules" about where and how to invest, Romney said at the time, undermining its blindness.

    Just as troublesome, once a blind trust is created, it's impossible for a legislator to forget what went into it. That caused problems in 2005, after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist asked his trustee to sell some $10 million in shares of HCA — the hospital company his family founded — in a deal that closed days before the stock lost a tenth of its value. Somewhat ironically, Frist said that the reason he wanted to sell the shares was to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. The Securities and Exchange Commission investigated the incident and opted not to press charges. Still, the political fallout was big, and it didn't matter that Frist's trusts were technically blind. It was clear that he knew management hadn't sold his entire stake in the company he helped build.

    In Romney's case, much of his finances are tied up with private equity, mostly managed by his old colleagues at Bain Capital. Through no fault of his own, Romney likely has a pretty good idea of what's in those funds – given that Bain's strategies are widely reported in the financial press.

    The bottom line: "the public should not expect too much for the blind trust mechanism," says Robert L. Walker a lawyer at Wiley Rein LLP, who has been staff director of both the Senate and House ethics committees.