When Mitt Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts a decade ago, Democrats went before a state commission to demand that he be struck from the ballot. Their argument: That after taking over the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, he had ceased to live and work in Massachusetts, the state where he had built Bain Capital into one of the leading private equity firms in the world.
Romney's team was just as insistent in arguing the opposite. For 30 years, argued his lawyer, "the center of his social, civic, and business life has been in this commonwealth."
Now, amid the heat of the presidential campaign and unrelenting attacks from Democrats over Romney's tenure at Bain, Romney's three-year sojourn in Utah has again become the source of controversy - but with the positions reversed.
President Obama and the Democrats are questioning whether Romney really left Bain in February 1999, when he took over the Olympics. And Romney and the Republicans are insisting that he ended his day-to-day management role at Bain after taking the Olympics job.
At stake is whether Democrats can hold Romney responsible for a series of now-controversial investments Bain made during the period in question, including in companies that specialized in outsourcing, laid off some of their workers or declared bankruptcy.
When Bain Capital was originally created, Romney was given full control of the private equity firm's new management company, Bain Capital Inc. When Romney went on leave in 1999, he retained ownership of that entity - and with it, in theory at least, the power to control Bain Capital's funds.
At the time, Romney appeared to be leaving open the possibility that he would return to Bain. But campaign and company officials now say that the Olympics job quickly became all-consuming and that Romney delegated his management powers to the active partners.
Yet because he retained technical control of Bain Capital's management and because his wealth remained heavily tied up with the firm, Romney's name or signature appears on dozens of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission between February 1999 and August 2001, when he finalized a retirement deal with the active Bain partners and transferred to them his shares of Bain's management entity.
Some of the filings reflect the complex nature of private equity funds: Each Bain fund was run by a separate general partnership - one that included all Bain's executives - that in turn was legally controlled by Romney through his management entity.
"It's a disconnect between the ownership interest and managerial functions," said Harvey Pitt, who served as SEC chairman under former President George W. Bush. "When Bain takes positions in public companies, they're required to show anyone who has an ownership interest that could be the effective equivalent of control. So Romney has to be shown on those filings. ... But it has nothing to do with who's actually running Bain Capital."
Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds' investments after he left, although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period.
Romney's team was just as insistent in arguing the opposite. For 30 years, argued his lawyer, "the center of his social, civic, and business life has been in this commonwealth."
Now, amid the heat of the presidential campaign and unrelenting attacks from Democrats over Romney's tenure at Bain, Romney's three-year sojourn in Utah has again become the source of controversy - but with the positions reversed.
President Obama and the Democrats are questioning whether Romney really left Bain in February 1999, when he took over the Olympics. And Romney and the Republicans are insisting that he ended his day-to-day management role at Bain after taking the Olympics job.
At stake is whether Democrats can hold Romney responsible for a series of now-controversial investments Bain made during the period in question, including in companies that specialized in outsourcing, laid off some of their workers or declared bankruptcy.
When Bain Capital was originally created, Romney was given full control of the private equity firm's new management company, Bain Capital Inc. When Romney went on leave in 1999, he retained ownership of that entity - and with it, in theory at least, the power to control Bain Capital's funds.
At the time, Romney appeared to be leaving open the possibility that he would return to Bain. But campaign and company officials now say that the Olympics job quickly became all-consuming and that Romney delegated his management powers to the active partners.
Yet because he retained technical control of Bain Capital's management and because his wealth remained heavily tied up with the firm, Romney's name or signature appears on dozens of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission between February 1999 and August 2001, when he finalized a retirement deal with the active Bain partners and transferred to them his shares of Bain's management entity.
Some of the filings reflect the complex nature of private equity funds: Each Bain fund was run by a separate general partnership - one that included all Bain's executives - that in turn was legally controlled by Romney through his management entity.
"It's a disconnect between the ownership interest and managerial functions," said Harvey Pitt, who served as SEC chairman under former President George W. Bush. "When Bain takes positions in public companies, they're required to show anyone who has an ownership interest that could be the effective equivalent of control. So Romney has to be shown on those filings. ... But it has nothing to do with who's actually running Bain Capital."
Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds' investments after he left, although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period.