2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[kurai]

do you contend that signing documents in one's role as shareholder of 'Bain Capital Investors V' (as found in various 1999-2001 filings) is non-involvement with "the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way"?

this is highly dubious. the 'operations' of these entities could not go forward without his signature; his ownership-derived voting power is thus his reason for signing in the first place; that is how and why he is involved with their operations.

he was well aware of acting in this ownership capacity with regard to bain subsidiaries, but told the FEC that he had no involvement. your standard of proof is veering towards day-to-day involvement, but this is a misdirect.

consider the purpose of these SEC filings: by signing them, romney was acknowledging ownership of a particular portion of a given set of securities. bain capital could not conduct these transactions without such acknowledgement. it is illegal to not provide this acknowledgement - this is a pretty important function of the SEC.

since romney's participation is thus a necessary condition of these bain securities transactions, it must be involvement rather than non-involvement.

[Roy Karrde]

do you contend that signing documents in one's role as shareholder of 'Bain Capital Investors V' (as found in various 1999-2001 filings) is non-involvement with "the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way"?

this is highly dubious. the 'operations' of these entities could not go forward without his signature; his ownership-derived voting power is thus his reason for signing in the first place; that is how and why he is involved with their operations.

he was well aware of acting in this ownership capacity with regard to bain subsidiaries, but told the FEC that he had no involvement. your standard of proof is veering towards day-to-day involvement, but this is a misdirect.

consider the purpose of these SEC filings: by signing them, romney was acknowledging ownership of a particular portion of a given set of securities. bain capital could not conduct these transactions without such acknowledgement. it is illegal to not provide this acknowledgement - this is a pretty important function of the SEC.

since romney's participation is thus a necessary condition of these bain securities transactions, it must be involvement rather than non-involvement.

Again like I said the burden of proof will be hard to reach when Romney was shown not to have any active role in the company, and yes I do contain that signing legal documents do not reach the level of a active role. He participated in merely a legal exercise, nothing that had any role that dealt with the activity of the company.

Mind you the SEC does not require the CEO to be involved in the operational decision-making of the company. So again, no signing documents does not mean you are involved in the operations of the company.