California Passes Law Forcing Trump To Disclose Tax Returns To Appear On Ballot

[femurphy77]

Sorry, you are behind on your dues. You've been dropped from the newsletter.

Dammit!

 

[Alamo]

I missed the Dem prez nominee debates. Which ones announced they were publishing their tax returns? I'll bet Bernie's are a hoot.

 

[jamil]

Where is that written? I know for a fact that states require a fee to be placed on the ballot. If what you say is true, why isn't that also verboten?

Well, in that case, I think Indiana should require POTUS candidates to unseal their education records, including past presidents. Ooh. Here's a good one. Presidential candidates must divulge how many times they've engaged in anal sex.

Taxes are about that petty. It's a ploy to force Trump to give Rachel Maddow fodder to resurrect her failing program. President's shouldn't have to divulge personal tax records for that reason. But it's fair that they should divulge a few things about their taxes. For example I think every POTUS candidate should have a financial summary prepared by a certified third party. The summary would include things like income over the past x years, net worth, holdings in which foreign countries, taxes paid, if the candidate has been audited, a summary of audit disposition(s), along with a list of any anomalies which might post a potential conflict of interest.

But whatever. It's not like Trump's gonna get California's electoral votes anyway. And if they get away with doing that, okay. Let's play that tit for tat game. It's just a continuation of division. The blue states get bluer, the red states get redder, the purple states become physical battlegrounds, not just figuratively.

 

[jamil]

There's already a precedent. Back when term limits for congresscritters fell short (1995) Arkansas tried to put limits on its own critters. It was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html

The opinion from Justice Stevens:
"[A]s the Framers recognized, electing representatives to the National Legislature was a new right, arising from the Constitution itself. The Tenth Amendment thus provides no basis for concluding that the States possess reserved power to add qualifications to those that are fixed in the Constitution. Instead, any state power to set the qualifications for membership in Congress must derive not from the reserved powers of state sovereignty, but rather from the delegated powers of national sovereignty. In the absence of any constitutional delegation to the States of power to add qualifications to those enumerated in the Constitution, such a power does not exist."

Besides, if you really want to go down the rabbit hole of whether or not states can add requirements to hold federal office what's to stop another state from passing a law banning Democrat candidates from the ballot, or any other party for that matter? Term limits at least had the veneer of being universally applicable, but the Arkansas law would have affected only people representing the state of Arkansas and it was still ruled unconstitutional. California's new law obviously reaches beyond the confines of the state. Plus, let's not pretend that it's based on anything other than hatred for the current occupant of the White House.

Well, yeah. But then Justice Stevens was ruling against a conservative law. If the law had benefited progressives, he'd have been on the opposite side.

 

[jamil]

and college transcripts...

[STRIKE]And whether any family members have ever undergone a sex change operation.[/STRIKE]


Oops. Sorry. I didn't just say that.

 

[jamil]

I don't care what the letter is behind a candidate's name (notice I didn't say "man"); yes a tax return can show you something of his character but what's next? Personal health information, bedroom preferences, favorite cereals? So some people started voluntarily making this info available years ago, if it's needed it should become a federal law and affect all retroactively. Since it's so "important" it's only right! Gotta go work on the boat.

Well, I think a financial summary would be beneficial for people to know. I wouldn't mind that requirement for all candidates. But tax returns is something that's really intended to for the opposition to use to dig up dirt. I don't see a need to get into that level of public scrutiny.

 

[BugI02]

Well, in that case, I think Indiana should require POTUS candidates to unseal their education records, including past presidents. Ooh. Here's a good one. Presidential candidates must divulge how many times they've engaged in anal sex.

Taxes are about that petty. It's a ploy to force Trump to give Rachel Maddow fodder to resurrect her failing program. President's shouldn't have to divulge personal tax records for that reason. But it's fair that they should divulge a few things about their taxes. For example I think every POTUS candidate should have a financial summary prepared by a certified third party. The summary would include things like income over the past x years, net worth, holdings in which foreign countries, taxes paid, if the candidate has been audited, a summary of audit disposition(s), along with a list of any anomalies which might post a potential conflict of interest.

But whatever. It's not like Trump's gonna get California's electoral votes anyway. And if they get away with doing that, okay. Let's play that tit for tat game. It's just a continuation of division. The blue states get bluer, the red states get redder, the purple states become physical battlegrounds, not just figuratively.

I think you underestimate the ravages of TDS. In the current environment, what would be made of it if Trump had an investment position in an internationally focused mutual fund that happened to have investments in Russian companies in its portfolio? I'll tell you. The headline would be 'TRUMP HAS MILLIONS INVESTED IN RUSSIAN COMPANIES'

It's like anti-gerrymandering legislation, if it was already in place it would be awesome but implementing it now becomes just another partisan battlefield

 

[jamil]

I think you underestimate the ravages of TDS. In the current environment, what would be made of it if Trump had an investment position in an internationally focused mutual fund that happened to have investments in Russian companies in its portfolio? I'll tell you. The headline would be 'TRUMP HAS MILLIONS INVESTED IN RUSSIAN COMPANIES'

It's like anti-gerrymandering legislation, if it was already in place it would be awesome but implementing it now becomes just another partisan battlefield

Trump would be long gone before such legislation would be implemented. But just to add to the thing, I think it's fair that any foundations founded by candidates should also be scrutinized. If a financial summary of the Clinton Foundation's conflicts were made public, that could be some pretty good fodder for Sean Hannity.