Talk:Blind trust

Does this article conflate two different things?

On the one hand, we have something that seems perfectly honorable for a politician to do: put his or her own money into a blind trust so as to avoid particular conflict of interest in legislative matters which might impact different investments differentially.

On the other hand, in the UK discussion, we seem to have something that seems questionable - a fund which pays politicians but for which no one (not even the politicians?) knows who the contributors to the fund are.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this should be separated and written with a more complete, and honest description. This is also not written in required Wikipedic format. 75.17.206.17 (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Seriously?[reply]

Beneficiary vs. grantor

This article initially suggests that a grantor is different from a beneficiary: "Blind trusts are generally used when a trust creator (sometimes called a settlor, trustor, grantor, or donor) wishes to keep the beneficiary unaware..." However, it then suggests that they are the same: "the trustee must not be affiliated with, associated with, related to, or subject to the control or influence of the grantor (the political official)." (Presumably, the political official is the beneficiary.) Perhaps they can be the same person in certain circumstances, but with the current wording, it's somewhat confusing. I think that it should be clarified. (I'm far from an expert on these issues and would not be the one to do so.) 74.71.77.7 (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Robinesque (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relative as Trustee

The article said that a trustee *should not* be a relative and cited a Senate document. However, that document is clearly contradictory - In one sentence, it says the trustee cannot be related to the beneficiary and then in the next sentence it uses the "should not" language. Obviously, the former is correct (according to the actual US Code). So I've removed that reference and the incorrect language and instead substituted a reference to the actual US Code which is clear. However, the USC is not a 3rd-party source so technically this is unacceptable for wikipedia. However, in this case, the obvious 3rd-party source is clearly wrong so it makes no sense to use it. What's the solution? Donlibes (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the Cornell reference. I also added back the US Senate Ethics Office reference, since it is more readable, less legalese-y, and pretty darn near correct.Robinesque (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Senate reference is that it is being cited in news reports and discussions to justify that it is acceptable for family members to control the blind trust of a relative. The USC says this is not acceptable. For this reason, I'm going to re-remove the Senate reference. Donlibes (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]