Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

CORRUPTION: Bain-Controlled Company Owns 2012 Voting Machines

Owners Of Electronic Voting Machine Company Are Romney Super-Fans

Photo: Roger Barone/flickr

We’re not really into conspiracy theories here, so let us just say this upfront: We are not presenting the following article as any kind of conspiracy theory. We will say, though, that the people who own voting machines in some pretty important swing states have a pretty remarkable bias toward Mitt Romney and, you know, someone should probably keep an eye on this, no?

Okay, so here’s what we know:

Hart InterCivic is a national provider of election voting systems that are used in swing-states Ohio and Colorado, as well as in states we don’t really care about so much because we already know how they’ll turn out (e.g., Texas, Oklahoma, and Hawaii). Private equity firm H.I.G. Capital, LLC bought out a “significant” portion of Hart in July of 2011, and now the majority of Hart’s board directors are employees of H.I.G. (It’s not entirely clear how much of the voting machine company H.I.G. owns, but the financial advisors responsible for the transaction state that “Hart Intercivic was acquired by HIG Capital.”)

H.I.G., in turn, has ties to Bain & Co. and Mitt Romney directly:

  • Of H.I.G.’s 22 American directors, 21 donated to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. One person made no political donations at all;  one person donated to both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama; the remaining 20 directors donated exclusively to Mitt Romney in 2012. (See below for links to donations.)

  • Of these 22 American directors, seven of them (nearly one-third) are former Bain employees. Now, we should note (as a reader helpfully pointed out), this is Bain & Co., which Mitt Romney left in order to start the affiliated Bain Capital. The connection is therefore a little more tenuous, but we still find H.I.G.’s overwhelming allegiance and financial support of the Romney campaign surprising (not that it’s surprising that a private equity company would lean Republican, but this level of support is pretty unusual).

  • Four of H.I.G.’s directors, Tony Tamer, John Bolduc, Douglas Berman, and Brian D. Schwartz,  are Romney bundlers along with former Bain and H.I.G. manager Brian Shortsleeve.
  • H.I.G. employees currently make up the majority of the Hart InterCivic’s five-member board of directors. Two of these three directors of the voting machine company, Neil Tuch and Jeff Bohl,  have donated directly to Mitt Romney’s campaign.
  • H.I.G. is the 11th largest donor to Mitt Romney’s campaign. H.I.G. employees have given $338,000 to the Romney campaign, outpacing even Bain Capital itself, which gave  $268,000.

Now, to be fair, besides the fact that H.I.G. employees make up the majority of Hart’s board of directors, we don’t know exactly how much control H.I.G. is able to exert over the voting machine company’s day-to-day operations. Plus, it seems like it would be pretty difficult to mess with the software without anyone finding out about it. Moreover, just from a cost-benefit standpoint, it doesn’t really make sense that these H.I.G. directors would commit a felony and risk their super-lucrative careers just to get their Bain bro elected.

But that said, this still makes us a little… uncomfortable. For instance, what if irregularities or honest mistakes are suspected (and this is a real possibility: Hart InterCivic has previously had some pretty major malfunctions in its voting systems)? The documentation will then be in the hands of Hart/H.I.G.

*Obligatory Amazon.com plug: Need to buy something on Amazon? Why not be awesome and buy it through this super helpful link we are providing right here?

Links to H.I.G.’s American directors:

Tony Tamer – Bain alum; Romney bundler; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Sami Mnaymneh – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign as well as Barack Obama’s campaign

Douglas Berman – Bain alum; Romney bundler; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

John Bolduc – Bain alum; Romney bundler; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Rick Rosen – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Brian Schwartz – bundler for the Romney campaign; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Timothy Armstrong – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

John Black – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Dave Blechman – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Peter Cornetta – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Marc Kramer – No known donations to presidential campaigns

Chris Laitala – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Elliot Maluth – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

William Nolan – Bain alum; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Michael Phillips – Bain alum; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Matt Sanford – Bain alum; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Lewis Schoenwetter – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Richard Stokes – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Neil Tuch – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Bret Wiener – donated exclusively to Mitt Romney’s campaign for 2012; donated initially to Mitt Romney and then to Barack Obama during the 2008 election

Rob Wolfson – donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Jeff Zanarini – Bain alum; donated to Mitt Romney’s campaign

Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Oct. 11, 2012 at 9:22 AM
Replies (21-30):
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM


Quoting radioheid:

 Sorry, but I just don't find reason for suspicion. Owning the company that makes voting machines doesn't equate to changing the votes. Christ, has the world really come to this? That everything is a conspiracy? Those big fraud machines didn't help Romney win the primary in '08.

You do realize the difference between suspicion and guilt, right?

We shouldn't ignore suspicion until someone is guilty of something. There should be an inbetween area where there is suspicion before someone does something to be guilty.

Which is why I say this is suspicious.

No one has said he did changed votes in the past, and that he will in the future. What we (People who do find this suspicious) is that there is reason to be concerned when one of the people who will be running in the Election has so many ties to a Company that owns the voting machines and those people that own those machines are currently investing into Mitt Romney, and helping him with money.

It is suspicious.

Am I saying they are altering the votes and should be disqualified? No. Am I saying there is some grand conspiracy? No. I am saying that the people who own the machines are invested in Mitt Romney both money wise, and relationship wise. And that should be enough suspicion to keep a close eye on them.

Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

radioheid
by Libertarian on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM

 So you're saying they might rig the election by using some sort of software that will what---change or delete votes?

Right.

Still not suspicious. The ballots are printed out, so it would be pretty easy to recognize fraud.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Quoting radioheid:

 Sorry, but I just don't find reason for suspicion. Owning the company that makes voting machines doesn't equate to changing the votes. Christ, has the world really come to this? That everything is a conspiracy? Those big fraud machines didn't help Romney win the primary in '08.

You do realize the difference between suspicion and guilt, right?

We shouldn't ignore suspicion until someone is guilty of something. There should be an inbetween area where there is suspicion before someone does something to be guilty.

Which is why I say this is suspicious.

No one has said he did changed votes in the past, and that he will in the future. What we (People who do find this suspicious) is that there is reason to be concerned when one of the people who will be running in the Election has so many ties to a Company that owns the voting machines and those people that own those machines are currently investing into Mitt Romney, and helping him with money.

It is suspicious.

Am I saying they are altering the votes and should be disqualified? No. Am I saying there is some grand conspiracy? No. I am saying that the people who own the machines are invested in Mitt Romney both money wise, and relationship wise. And that should be enough suspicion to keep a close eye on them.

 


"Roger that. Over."

R   A   D    I    O    H    E    I    D

SassB
by New Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM
1 mom liked this
What the poster left out is that the software provided by another vendor is owned by heavy Democrats.... and I'm sure other vote counting machine companies are run by other persuasions.... I didn't see any mention of that, and question their motivation.
D- on this one
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:41 PM

So you honestly don't think it looks suspicious at all?

That 21 of 22 of the American Director's donat to Mitt Romney?
That the Company was founded by a Former worker for Mitt Romney? And he was also a bundler for Mitt Romney's campaign?
That of the 22, 7 of them are former workers for Mitt Romney?
That 4 of the 22 were bundler's for Mitt Romney's campaign?
That 2 of these 22 people were at Mitt Romney's 50,000 a plate fundraiser?
That H.I.G is the 11th bigger donor to Mitt Romney?

Again. I am not asking do you think they are guilty of fraud. I am asking you do you really believe this doesn't look suspicious?

And if you say no-What would? Or do you have to go from, "I won't even think about it unless something illegal happens. Then I will jump from no idea to, That is horrible-Without ever touching an area of suspicion?

When are the ballots printed out? If they are printed out and the person who voted turns it in-Then that's pretty fair. But if they are printed out somewhere else or the person who voted doesn't see it. It would still be an extremely easy system to manipulate.

Again-I am not asking do you think they are guilty of a crime. I am simply pointing out the suspicion that should be present when the owners of voting machines are so closely tied to a candidate that is running for President.

Quoting radioheid:

 So you're saying they might rig the election by using some sort of software that will what---change or delete votes?

Right.

Still not suspicious. The ballots are printed out, so it would be pretty easy to recognize fraud.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Quoting radioheid:

 Sorry, but I just don't find reason for suspicion. Owning the company that makes voting machines doesn't equate to changing the votes. Christ, has the world really come to this? That everything is a conspiracy? Those big fraud machines didn't help Romney win the primary in '08.

You do realize the difference between suspicion and guilt, right?

We shouldn't ignore suspicion until someone is guilty of something. There should be an inbetween area where there is suspicion before someone does something to be guilty.

Which is why I say this is suspicious.

No one has said he did changed votes in the past, and that he will in the future. What we (People who do find this suspicious) is that there is reason to be concerned when one of the people who will be running in the Election has so many ties to a Company that owns the voting machines and those people that own those machines are currently investing into Mitt Romney, and helping him with money.

It is suspicious.

Am I saying they are altering the votes and should be disqualified? No. Am I saying there is some grand conspiracy? No. I am saying that the people who own the machines are invested in Mitt Romney both money wise, and relationship wise. And that should be enough suspicion to keep a close eye on them.

 


Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 4:42 PM

More conspiracy spinning and fear mongering coming from obama supporters....s. i. g. h.sidesplittinglaughter

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 4:53 PM


Quoting SassB:

What the poster left out is that the software provided by another vendor is owned by heavy Democrats.... and I'm sure other vote counting machine companies are run by other persuasions.... I didn't see any mention of that, and question their motivation.
D- on this one

Of course it was left out.  You can't scare people if you give them a complete story.  This is just another attempt to set up an accusation the dems will be throwing out if Obama loses.  I just love conspiracy stories.

grandma B

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Are you denying any of the claims?

Are is it just okay because it is a Republican doing it?

Quoting grandmab125:

More conspiracy spinning and fear mongering coming from obama supporters....s. i. g. h.sidesplittinglaughter


Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Friday
by HRH of MJ on Oct. 11, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Shades of 2004, Dubya and Diebold.

Should be an interesting election.


Church of The Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves)

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 7:33 PM


Quoting brookiecookie87:

Are you denying any of the claims?

Are is it just okay because it is a Republican doing it?

Quoting grandmab125:

More conspiracy spinning and fear mongering coming from obama supporters....s. i. g. h.sidesplittinglaughter

 

No, you don't.  You're not gonna get me into a dumb ass argument with you for the rest of the night.  Nice try.

grandma B

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 8:13 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting grandmab125:


Quoting brookiecookie87:

Are you denying any of the claims?

Are is it just okay because it is a Republican doing it?

Quoting grandmab125:

More conspiracy spinning and fear mongering coming from obama supporters....s. i. g. h.sidesplittinglaughter


No, you don't.  You're not gonna get me into a dumb ass argument with you for the rest of the night.  Nice try.

What you mean is you don't have any sources, or any details. Or any argument.

You just want to come in and thrash around because you don't like the implications of it. Got it.

Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN