First up: If you're not caught up on the Bain story of the day, you should read my post from this morning. The basic question is: Why was Mitt Romney on Bain's SEC filings for three years after he supposedly "left" Bain Capital? This new statement from Bain that Politico just ran doesn't really answer the question:
Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure. Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney's departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period.
So due to the sudden nature of his departure, he remained the sole stockholder for three years, until he decided to run for governor of Massachusetts? Are we supposed to believe that the same is true for Romney's other positions at Bain—“chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president?" What about the "five new investment partnerships" he supposedly created during that time? I don't think this statement is going to settle anything for anyone except diehard Republicans, who are always pretty eager to take the word of companies that do billions of dollars in business.
Get the best of the Mercury each week in your inbox!