MITT ROMNEY’S contemptuous attitude toward the importance of public disclosure is increasingly troubling. Whether it involves the details of his personal finances or the identity of his big fundraisers, the presumptive Republican is setting a new, low bar for transparency — one that does not augur well for how the Romney White House would conduct itself if he were elected.
First is the matter of tax returns. Mr. Romney’s campaign, belatedly and under pressure, released a single year’s worth of tax information in January along with a summary for the 2011 return. Now, with a Friday afternoon release conveniently timed for minimum news coverage a week ago, it announced that the candidate had filed for an extension. “Sometime in the next six months, and prior to the election, Gov. Romney will file and release the 2011 return when there is sufficient information to provide an accurate return,” spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement.
The campaign insisted that Mr. Romney was delaying because some of the companies in which he had invested had yet to report their earnings. This explanation would be a lot more palatable if Mr. Romney had demonstrated any inclination to live up to the standards of most previous presidential candidates — including, most notably, his own father, George Romney, who released a dozen years of returns when he ran for president in 1968.
Mitt Romney turned over more than two decades of returns when he was vetted as a possible vice presidential running mate for 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain. A few presidential candidates, including Mr. McCain, have been this stingy with their tax records, but the information is particularly relevant in Mr. Romney’s case because of the size of his fortune and the low share of income he paid in taxes for the year that was released.
Then there is the mystery of Mr. Romney’s bundlers. Candidates such as Mr. McCain, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, among others, voluntarily did the right thing and revealed the identity of these major fundraisers. Mr. Romney, despite the undeniable importance of these individuals, has declined to follow that practice.
Bundlers play a crucial role for political candidates, collecting donations that can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars to fuel campaigns. The candidates know full well to whom they are indebted. Perhaps Mr. Romney can explain why the public isn’t entitled to the same information.
- The Post’s View
- Opinions of the editorial board
Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board. The board includes: Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt; Deputy Editorial Page Editor Jackson Diehl; Jo-Ann Armao , who specializes in education and District affairs; Jonathan Capehart, who focuses on national politics; Lee Hockstader, who writes about political and other issues affecting Virginia and Maryland; Charles Lane, who concentrates on economic policy, trade and globalization; Ruth Marcus, who focuses on U.S. politics, the budget and taxes and other domestic issues; Eva Rodriguez, who specializes in legal affairs; and editorial cartoonistTom Toles. Op-ed editor Autumn Brewington, opinions editor for digital Marisa Bellackand letters editor Michael Larabee also take part in board discussions. The board highlights issues it thinks are important and responds to news events, mindful of stands it has taken in previous editorials and principles that have animated Post editorial boards over time. Articles in the news pages sometimes prompt ideas for editorials, but every editorial is based on original reporting. News reporters and editors never contribute to editorial board discussions, and editorial board members don’t have any role in news coverage.
Romney’s assertion about Obama is wrong
“This president’s failed economic policies” is Mitt Romney’s favorite applause line. Romney never includes a list of the economic policies proposed by President Obama that were enacted into law and that have failed.
The truth is that every one of the president’s economic strategies were opposed at every turn by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and or the Republican filibuster in the Senate. What Romney conveniently leaves out of his stump speeches is that this president’s economic policies were never enacted into law by the Congress.
It is the height of hypocrisy to refuse to enact any of the proposals and then to charge that the president’s policies have failed.
— Dennis Miller, Des Moines