RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Bellows writes: "Many theories have been advanced to explain why Romney keeps refusing to produce any returns prior to 2010, ranging from 'voters might learn he's wealthy' (which voters already know) to 'he underpaid his church tithe' (doubtful)."

Mitt Romney at the NAACP convention in Houston, 07/11/12. (photo: Reuters)
Mitt Romney at the NAACP convention in Houston, 07/11/12. (photo: Reuters)


Mitt Romney's Tax Returns: The 'Voter Fraud' Theory

By MS Bellows Jr., Guardian UK

19 August 12

 

There has been much speculation about why Romney refuses to disclose earlier tax returns. Could it be as simple as an address?

riday's exchange of letters between the election campaigns of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, in which Romney rejected Obama's offer to drop the tax return issue if Romney will produce just three more years' records, has moved the long-simmering brouhaha over Romney's tax returns back to the front media burner. Romney has only produced two tax returns so far. That's many fewer than any presidential candidate has disclosed in decades, setting up the hearsay accusation disseminated joyfully by Harry Reid (who may or may not actually believe it) that Romney is afraid to tell voters that he sometimes pays no taxes at all. (Romney has answered that, saying he has never paid less than 13% in taxes on his income.)

Meanwhile, Romney appears to have escaped relatively unsinged from the apparently unrelated revelation that he may have committed voter fraud in January 2010, when � despite not owning a house in Massachusetts and having given every appearance of having moved to California � he registered and voted in the Massachusetts special election to replace the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy. Given the GOP's ongoing use of the "voter fraud" fable to justify modern Jim Crow laws and its highly-publicized persecution of the voter registration group Acorn, an actual case of felony voter fraud committed by the Republican nominee could have been a big story � but Romney was able to tamp down the flames by claiming, not very credibly but also not disprovably, that he and Ann actually were living in their son Tagg's Belmont, Massachusetts basement in 2010. Without proof that Romney lied about where he lived, there's no felony � and no big national story.

Many (many, many, many, many, many) theories have been advanced to explain why Romney keeps refusing to produce any returns prior to 2010, ranging from "voters might learn he's wealthy" (which voters already know) to "he underpaid his church tithe" (doubtful).

None of them is really satisfactory, because none of them posits Romney concealing any facts more harmful than the blowback he is getting for not producing more returns. The problem may be that all of the prominent theories (with a couple of under-noticed exceptions) assume Romney is trying to conceal facts about his finances. Like the purloined letter pinned prominently in plain sight, what Romney's really hiding might be something more mundane: the home address written on the top of the tax form. That address that might reveal a connection between the "tax returns" brouhaha and the "voter fraud" fizzle � which may be the strongest explanation of all. Here's why.

Tax returns require taxpayers to state their residence address, and the Romney returns already produced, although partially redacted, state clearly that they lived in "Belmont, MA 02478" in 2012 (tax year 2011) (pdf) and 2011 (tax year 2010) (pdf):

But the Romneys, arbitrarily, refuse to disclose a copy of the returns they filed in 2010 or 2009 (for tax years 2009 and 2008) � which, perhaps not coincidentally, bracket the time period when Romney allegedly committed fraud by voting in Massachusetts when he actually resided in California. So here's the question: did Romney put his son's basement's address on the returns he filed in 2009 and 2010? Or did he truthfully use his real (non-Massachusetts) address, thus implicating himself in voter fraud?

This may seem like overmeticulous wonkishness, but the address given on tax returns is a big deal when it comes to proving voter fraud. As Hans von Spakovsky (senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, former Federal Election Commission member, and former DOJ voting-issue attorney, and himself an advocate of the GOP's restrictive voter ID requirements) explained to the Daily Caller:

"Election officials will also look at tax returns as crucial evidence in residency disputes. Where an individual declares himself to be a resident for tax purposes, thus subjecting himself to applicable state income taxes, is usually decisive on this issue."

With that in mind, let's run through the dates, keeping in mind that tax returns are filed the year after the tax year in question (and that Romney's returns, which are exceptionally complicated, likely are filed toward the end of that year: that is, his 2010 return was filed in October 2011):

  • In April 2009, Romney sold his longtime Massachusetts home at 171 Marsh Street and appeared to move to La Jolla, California. He did not own a home in Massachusetts again until July 2010. (All of the Massachusetts addresses discussed here end with "Belmont, MA 02478", though one might amuse oneself surmising which address is underneath the Sharpie by the length of the redaction.)

  • Sometime in 2009, probably late in the year, Romney filed his 2008 tax return, identifying the address where he lived at the time of filing. He has refused to disclose a copy of that return.

  • Sometime in or shortly before January 2010 � that is, not long after he filed his 2008 return � Romney registered to vote in Massachusetts, stating on his voter registration form that he lived in his son Tagg's basement at 18 Greensbrook Way. In January 2010, Romney voted in Massachusetts' special election, which would be a felony if he was not a Massachusetts resident at the time.

  • In July 2010, Romney once again became a Massachusetts property owner when he bought a new townhouse at 10 S Cottage Road Unit 3. However, as the owner of several other houses, he still could have resided elsewhere for voter registration purposes.

  • Sometime (probably late) in 2010, Romney filed his 2009 tax return. If that return was filed before July and he really was living in Tagg's basement, it should give a Belmont address. If it was filed after July, and Romney truly considered Massachusetts his home, it should give the Cottage Road address. He has refused to disclose a copy of that return.

  • On 15 October 2011, Romney's accountant filed his 2010 return, giving a redacted Belmont address (presumably the Cottage Road townhouse) as his residence.

If Romney's 2008 return (filed in 2009, shortly before the January 2010 special election) didn't give Tagg's basement as his address, then Romney clearly didn't consider Massachusetts his home in that year. If Romney's 2009 return (filed in 2010) gives a non-Massachusetts address, despite the fact that he claimed to be a Massachusetts resident earlier that year and had bought a house in Massachusetts in July, then Romney clearly didn't consider Massachusetts his home in that year either. If Democrats hit the daily double � in other words, if Romney declared La Jolla, California to be his home in both years � then Massachusetts prosecutors likely will have no choice but to take a hard second look at their ex-governor. (The Obama campaign's new focus on obtaining only three more years' returns � 2007, 2008 and 2009 � may suggest they're focusing in on this possibility as well.)

A felony voter fraud charge could expose Romney to fines and/or imprisonment, jeopardize Romney's standing with the Michigan State Bar, and � worst of all, in the political sense � would be a mortal embarrassment on the campaign trail, both to himself and to downticket Republicans (especially Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who won the special election in question but is locked in a tight, highly-publicized race against the popular Elizabeth Warren to retain his seat).

So far, none of the reasons advanced for Romney's refusal to produce tax returns seems good enough to justify the political heat his campaign is taking. But if those returns give a non-Massachusetts address, then Romney can't afford to produce them, no matter how much political fallout his campaign faces as a result. All of this is speculation, of course, though it seems at least as plausible as Harry Reid's suggestion that Romney paid no taxes before 2011, but there's only one way it can be resolved: by Mitt Romney releasing those tax returns.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+52 # Kumari 2012-10-12 13:55
why does the richest nation in the world need to spend anything on food stamps? why cant americans afford to buy food?
it might be a rich country but as far as i'm concerned it's morally bankrupt
 
 
+8 # jlohman 2012-10-13 19:21
Of course free education makes sense, but there's no money in it for the politicians. They'd rather spend our tax dollars on things that draw campaign bribes (like defense weapons).

see http://MoneyedPoliticians.net
 
 
-7 # Luis Emilio 2012-10-12 14:23
In which states is the Green Party running? Maryland? Will e vote for the Green Party endanger Obama?
 
 
+5 # Muzzi 2012-10-13 11:14
Yes, it will split the vote. Obama is closer to the Green Party than the Republicans. Remember that jerk that Ronald Reagan appointed, and how he sold the environment and the animals down the polluted river?
 
 
+16 # dick 2012-10-12 14:40
ABC, NBC, CNN, & CBS do more damage than FAUX. They relentlessly portray an insane status quo as wonderful, natural.
 
 
+28 # bmiluski 2012-10-12 14:40
Is that a type (Ihope)....Pres ident Obama is pulling our troops out in 2014 NOT 2024.
 
 
+29 # cordleycoit 2012-10-12 14:53
We are scalping the children's education and heath to feed the war on terror-Drugs-an d protest to make our Masters rich.The election is a sham the winners will be the Wall Street bankers no matter who you vote for.
 
 
+11 # Muzzi 2012-10-13 00:06
Right. We should legalize a lot of the drugs to take the profit out of them. When you do that, you will lower the crime rates. One of the Mayors in Baltimore said that years ago and everyone laughed at him. They should have listened. What did prohibition do, except make money for the Mafia?
 
 
+37 # James Smith 2012-10-12 15:15
America only rates number one in military spending. That's because too many companies are making huge profits from it. Even with the billions wasted on the military budget our people are not always the best-equipped. That is a national scandal, too. Does anyone thing that the military-indust rial complex care about the lives wasted?
 
 
+6 # Regina 2012-10-13 17:57
Endless war is the Republican mantra for population control. Killing adults in battle is OK -- just don't get in the way of a fertilized human cell, or even an as-yet unfertilized one, two weeks early. They scream against contraception and enact crazy invasive laws against women's control of their own bodies. They join forces with religious interests in violation of the Constitution. The real driving fact underlying their malarkey is the profits they rake in from their military adventures -- they're so obsessed that they pass funding provisions for equipment that the military says they don't need or want. That's how they generate deficits that they then proceed to rant against. Who else demands support for two totally directly opposing sets of policies????
 
 
+2 # independentmind 2012-10-14 14:07
You notice too that not one of Mitt Romney's five sons is in the services, most of the kids that are in there came from less wealthy homes and do it to have their education paid for.
 
 
+20 # nancyw 2012-10-12 15:38
The age old dilemma of wanting to vote for what we believe in and is best for the country, but having to vote for a major party so the worse of possibilties can be prevented.

Just not right. But I don't want more destruction from a revolution... We need to think out of the box to fix this country.
 
 
+19 # worldviewer 2012-10-12 15:50
HOSTAGE IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
Does Obama really want US In Afghanistan until 2024? Or is he the hostage in the White House?
It's clear transnational business is trying to take over our government and our nation. They control the news and advertising that shapes how people think. And they would like to divide people--and the votes.
Remember what Gandhi and Martin Luther King understood--tha t each of us holds a bit of power. And if we the people join our power together we are more powerful than the 1%.
 
 
+8 # GGmaw 2012-10-13 06:10
Considering the transnational business interests working against him, Obama has done a very good job. People are fed a line of propoganda by the main media. Everything that has happened in our economy was carefully planned - read the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein - she predicted the recession years ago.
 
 
+19 # Linwood 2012-10-12 15:55
The fundamental question is why Americans accept the status quo.
People in other western democracies would not put up with the status of working Americans. What happened to that revolutionary spirit?
 
 
+33 # Gordon K 2012-10-12 16:06
 
 
+22 # socrates2 2012-10-12 19:33
Gordon K, hear, hear!
I, too, happen to like the sly paragraph in Part 2, Chapter 9, from "THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM by Emmanuel Goldstein," to wit, "And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival. War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way."
Nothing like a little fear to block critical thinking and to "persuade" majorities to surrender every shred of freedom and dignity.
Viva, Orwell!
 
 
-10 # mangel 2012-10-12 16:57
I agree with you but you do not provide enough support for exiting Afghanistan. The fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons makes it a good idea the avoid having them under the control of a pro-Taliban government. This is an issue you need to address. You don't even address the possible consequences of leaving the area. It makes me wonder if you have even thought about it.
 
 
+12 # Nell H 2012-10-12 18:04
The future of America depends on graduating more scientists in mathematical fields -- mathematicians, engineers, biologists, computer scientists. If states would support these students (who are citizens) at their top state-supported universities with full tuition, room and board as long as they make satisfactory progress we would graduate the people we need to move our great country forward.
 
 
+15 # Bev 2012-10-12 20:08
Fundamental to all these issues is true education, not schooling. We have been dumbed down! We are not taught (by design) to think outside the box. Uneducated citizens are fearful of change and under duress, look back to the past (as in Tea Partiers) instead of looking to the future and with confidence to embrace innovation.
 
 
+15 # tazia@aol.com 2012-10-12 21:49
Quoting Bev:
Fundamental to all these issues is true education, not schooling. We have been dumbed down! We are not taught (by design) to think outside the box. Uneducated citizens are fearful of change and under duress, look back to the past (as in Tea Partiers) instead of looking to the future and with confidence to embrace innovation.

I have to agree..since "no child left behend", kids are taught to take the test rather than think what the lesson is about.
 
 
+7 # ladypyrates 2012-10-12 21:01
The comments here are dead on right but it's disheartening that so many Americans have no clue as to the economic heritage given us by the founders. If nothing else, go to normeconomics@att.net and try to get an idea of the economic structure that was the basis for our incredible prosperity. When one understands how unique the American system is, it's quite easy to identify how it's been dismantled and who the culprits are that have been working for it's demise.
 
 
+2 # 4yourinformation 2012-10-13 12:49
LIKE LIKE LIKE this article!

This is what the debates should be about. Joe Biden kicked Ryan's ass but he did it inside the parameters of established and allowable topics and information.

We need a REAL genuine debate about the entire menu of important concepts and facts.

Jill Stein would make those arguments.
 
 
0 # seefeellove 2012-10-14 11:53
What is one of the dumbest and most inhumane practices? That health and education, education being part of our health, are inaccessible for many.

In a world that is smart and compassionate, education and health care would be integrated systems and free for all. Also, every single person would have the best health care and education, accommodating everyone's needs. Privatization of this single system would be illegal, forever.

Who will pay for it? The people who believe they can never have enough money.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN