????昨晚美國總統大選辯論上，兩位競選人辯論的重點將是外交政策，但如果米特?羅姆尼州長投資中國公司的話題再次被提及，觀眾們無需感到驚奇。10月16日的辯論中，羅姆尼與奧巴馬就曾因這個話題唇槍舌戰激辯了一番。

????當奧巴馬總統質疑其競爭對手的海外投資時，羅姆尼州長在回答時使用了一個有錢人競選時經常會使用的概念——盲目信托。

????從理論上來講，盲目信托是好事。盲目信托將超越法制的階級身份和善于理財的聰明頭腦進行了完美的融合。自從林頓?B?約翰遜總統以來，這種策略一直被美國富有的政治精英用來規避利益沖突。從比爾?克林頓到喬治?布什，再到巴拉卡?奧巴馬，幾乎每一位總統選候選人，在某個時間點都至少有過一份盲目信托。2003年，當羅姆尼當選馬薩諸塞州州長時，他為自己和妻子都設立了盲目信托。

????盲目信托的好處非常明顯：通過授權其他人管理他們的資金，政府官員可以轉移針對內幕交易或不正當投資的任何指控。此外，盲目信托還允許信托人進行大膽投資，還不必面對冗長的披露過程，也無需承擔政治壓力。

????盡管有特殊待遇和最近的媒體報道，但事實上，只有極個別美國立法者擁有盲目信托。據美國參議院道德委員會公布，100名美國參議員中，僅有7位通過批準流程，設立了盲目信托。而在眾議院，擁有盲目信托的議員比例更少。據響應政治研究中心（Center for Responsive Politics）披露，截至2010年，眾議院435名議員中，僅有12人擁有正式的盲目信托。而且，在過去幾年中，這一比例并沒有太大變化。

????選擇盲目信托的人為什么這么少？其實，盲目信托看起來很簡單，但實際上卻是一種非常復雜和繁瑣的理財工具。據美國世達律師事務所（Skadden Arps）的倫理律師肯尼斯?A?格羅斯稱，盲目信托的啟動成本就要高達數萬美元，而設立和維護盲目信托通常是一個痛苦的過程。格羅斯為候選人辦理盲目信托提供指導。他說道，通常情況下，盲目信托“只會讓一個人的生活變得更加復雜。”

????首先，并非所有盲目信托真的是要進行盲目投資。通常，對于一位富人來說，盲目信托充其量也只能說是有些目光短淺。而這一點會帶來政治影響。

????問問羅姆尼1994年前后都發生了些什么事就能明白這一點。有一則關于羅姆尼與泰德?肯尼迪競選參議院席位的視頻廣泛流傳。視頻顯示，羅姆尼把盲目信托稱作是“老套的把戲。”

????當時，羅姆尼諷刺盲目基金的盲目性，稱一名政客可以“給盲目信托制定規則”，規定在哪里投資，以及如何投資。

????此外，一旦設立了盲目信托，立法委員就不可能對其聽之任之。2005年，美國參議院多數黨領袖比爾?弗里斯特就成為此陷入過麻煩。當時，比爾?弗里斯特要求他的信托人賣掉價值1,000萬美元的HCA公司股份。HCA是由其家人創辦的一家醫療公司。而幾天之后，該公司股票市值便狂跌十分之一。而諷刺的是，弗里斯特說他之所以想賣掉那些股份，目的是為了避免利益沖突。美國證券交易委員會（The Securities and Exchange Commission）對此事進行了調查，但最終放棄了正式起訴。但此事還是造成了巨大的政治影響，至于弗里斯特的基金在技術上是否具有盲目性，已經無關緊要。很明顯，他知道，管理層并未將他在自己幫助成立的公司中的所有股份全部賣掉。

????而羅姆尼的大部分資產均與私募股權有關，大部分由其在貝恩資本（Bain Capital）的舊同事負責管理。雖然這并不是羅姆尼的錯，但他肯定很清楚基金的動向，因為貝恩資本的戰略經常被財經媒體廣泛報道。

????衛理律師事務所（Wiley Rein LLP）律師羅伯特?L?沃克是美國參議院和眾議院道德委員會的辦公室主任。他認為，最主要的是：“公眾不能對盲目信托機制抱有太大期望。”

????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.