Why is a "blind trust" supposed to be a good thing?

[Duer 157099]

I mean, I understand the concept, but doesn't it imply that the person wants to deliberately not see what is happening and thus not be responsible?

Shouldn't the fact that any politician uses a "blind trust" immediately disqualify them for public office, as it demonstrates exactly how they plan to govern?

[Motown_Johnny]

1. No

The idea is that they can't set policies that would help their personal investments if they don't know the specifics of their own personal investments.

[pnwmom]

2. It's supposed to reduce the possibility of a conflict of interest

since the owner would no longer know what s/he's invested in.

[RedStateLiberal]

3. I wonder that too

Especially for Rmoney whose entire campaign hinges on his qualifications as a good businessman. What kind of smart businessman lets others control their investments without knowing anything about what's being done with their money? Maybe it's something really rich people do since they can afford to lose big? It seems he doesn't want to be held accountable for anything bad...ever. Typical empty suit politian and he'll obviously govern that way too.

[2pooped2pop]

4. u still basically control a blind trust.

Just not on paper so to speak. I have little understanding but I think that you put your property into a blind trust that is governed by someone not close to you. Being a blind trust, technically it can't be forced to sell your property or liquidate in any way as it is suppose to do what is best for you and cannot be made to do otherwise.
The thing about it is though, is that if you can fire the guy you gave the power to if he is not doing what you want him to do. So by controlling him in this way, you actually are controlling that blind trust.
Wasn't Mitt's blind trust executor his personal lawyer? And probably his good friend?

Mitt was in control of that trust. Just not on paper.