Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-21-2019, 01:28 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,785

Proposed state laws to require presidential candidate tax returns


Bunches of states are at various stages of legislation that would require presidential candidates to release some number of years of tax returns in order to appear on their ballots.

These laws are really, really dumb.

My reasons:

1) They're probably unconstitutional. Now, I'm not a lawyer, or a constitutional scholar, or even someone who's read a whole lot about this topic, but what little I have read seems pretty open and shut that this wouldn't pass muster with the courts. Why waste the time?

2) They're un-American. "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" is not how we do things here. Let candidates keep their privacy if they want.

3) They won't change anything. People can vote how they want, and apparently Americans have decided that they don't care whether or not someone releases their tax returns. After all, this "time honored tradition" isn't even that old, there was a time when it would have been unheard of to care about seeing someone's tax returns.

4) They're clearly targeted. I was under the impression that we weren't cool with laws that were targeted at a specific individual. If that's changed, I didn't get the memo.

5) They're just tax returns. In the specific case of Trump, I'm honestly not sure what bombshells anyone's expecting to find. All of the real dirty shit is going to be layered in LLCs and the Trump Organization and various trusts. Someone's income tax situation isn't going to say anything at all about laundering money from Russian mobsters. If it did, they'd be in jail already, because last time I checked the IRS was the authorities. Tax returns are literally the only part of someone's personal financial history that someone has deemed clean enough not to hide from the government.

Anyone disagree?
  #2  
Old 03-21-2019, 01:46 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,568
If a car wash can run a credit history check on a job applicant, why not the country on a presidential candidate?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #3  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:05 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,746
Because the qualifications to work in a car wash aren't set in the Constitution.

Regards,
Shodan
  #4  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:06 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
If a car wash can run a credit history check on a job applicant, why not the country on a presidential candidate?
Non of the proposed bills require a presidential candidate to produce a credit history check.
  #5  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:14 PM
BwanaBob's Avatar
BwanaBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,084
I'll go one further. The candidate needs to be "clearable" in order to be put on a state's ballot. That'll weed out the vermin, on all sides.
__________________
Go wherever you can be
And live for the day
It's only wear and tear
-IQ
  #6  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:23 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by BwanaBob View Post
I'll go one further. The candidate needs to be "clearable" in order to be put on a state's ballot. That'll weed out the vermin, on all sides.

You're comfortable letting a group of unaccountable bureaucrats remove candidates from the ballot for reasons they're not allowed to publicly state due to "national security?" THAT certainly doesn't sound like America.

"Sorry Mr. Obama, you've failed your SSBI. We can't tell you why. We can't tell anyone why. It's 100% not because you're black and we're racist. 100% not that. Trust us."

Mm hmm.
  #7  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:29 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Bunches of states are at various stages of legislation that would require presidential candidates to release some number of years of tax returns in order to appear on their ballots.

These laws are really, really dumb.

My reasons:

1) They're probably unconstitutional. Now, I'm not a lawyer, or a constitutional scholar, or even someone who's read a whole lot about this topic, but what little I have read seems pretty open and shut that this wouldn't pass muster with the courts. Why waste the time?
Can you elaborate? The eligibility for who can be president is laid out in the constitution, but is that the same thing as the eligibility for who must appear on the state ballot? I'm almost certain it's not: I'm eligible to be president, but I'm pretty sure Vermont can refuse to put me on the ballot if I don't satisfy their ballot requirements (e.g., asking them to be on their ballot, and whatever other requirements they have).
  #8  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:41 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Can you elaborate? The eligibility for who can be president is laid out in the constitution, but is that the same thing as the eligibility for who must appear on the state ballot? I'm almost certain it's not: I'm eligible to be president, but I'm pretty sure Vermont can refuse to put me on the ballot if I don't satisfy their ballot requirements (e.g., asking them to be on their ballot, and whatever other requirements they have).
See "Constitutional Dimensions of Ballot Access Laws." Again, not remotely my area of expertise.
  #9  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:46 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Can you elaborate? The eligibility for who can be president is laid out in the constitution, but is that the same thing as the eligibility for who must appear on the state ballot? I'm almost certain it's not: I'm eligible to be president, but I'm pretty sure Vermont can refuse to put me on the ballot if I don't satisfy their ballot requirements (e.g., asking them to be on their ballot, and whatever other requirements they have).
I think there's a big difference between requirements for ballot access that are sort of administrative in nature (pay your fee, collect a certain number of signatures, etc) and those that are substantive but not part of the Constitution. I'd say that what's being proposed seems to fall on the substantive side of the line -- more akin to term limits than collecting signatures.

To put it another way, if the law says that states can't keep someone off the ballot based on how many terms in Congress they have served, I can't see how they can keep someone off the ballot for not disclosing their tax return.
  #10  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:48 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,746
The confidentiality of tax returns is protected by Federal law, because the IRS is a Federal agency. States don't get to overrule that.

Regards,
Shodan
  #11  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:51 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because the qualifications to work in a car wash aren't set in the Constitution.

Regards,
Shodan
But this won't disqualify anyone from running for president, all it does is require them to take certain actions to get on the ballot. Is it unconstitutional to require candidates to file with the board of elections and make campaign finance disclosures in order to be candidates?

I personally would prefer something a little more comprehensive than a simple tax form, but I think it would be definitely worth while to let the voters know of any potential conflicts of interest before they vote.
  #12  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:57 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
1. States can set ballot requirements. The federal govt telling them that they cannot would be what would be unconstitutional.

2. This is true of criminal law and such. Not so much when what you want is to be in the spotlight. If you have chosen that you want to be in the spotlight, then you have chosen to dismiss some privacy issues. If you want me to vote for you, then I do want to know what it is that you have to hide. People seem to confuse elections with jury trials, and this leads them to some pretty poor conclusions.

3. "Americans have decided"? No, not really. A small minority of americans voted for trump, and some fraction of that didn't mind him not following the usual traditions and norms. That is not "Americans have decided."

4. Targeted at who? I don't get it. I mean, they would be targeted at people running for president, but not at any particular individual. Why do you make this claim?

5. If they are just tax returns, then why not release them? Why did people start doing so? You are asking us to put you into one of the most powerful positions in the world here, not just your local city councilman. They let the people know a bit more about the candidate. You try to make that out to be a bad thing.
  #13  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:59 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The confidentiality of tax returns is protected by Federal law, because the IRS is a Federal agency. States don't get to overrule that.

Regards,
Shodan
I don't think that this confidentiality prevents people from revealing their own returns. Federal law prevents states taking money out of my bank account without due process, does that mean that it illegal for states to require me to pay a fee to get on the ballot?
  #14  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:59 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I think there's a big difference between requirements for ballot access that are sort of administrative in nature (pay your fee, collect a certain number of signatures, etc) and those that are substantive but not part of the Constitution. I'd say that what's being proposed seems to fall on the substantive side of the line -- more akin to term limits than collecting signatures.

To put it another way, if the law says that states can't keep someone off the ballot based on how many terms in Congress they have served, I can't see how they can keep someone off the ballot for not disclosing their tax return.
If a state had requirements for what is on your return, that would be substantive. That you have to release it would be administrative.

So, just because you owe back taxes for your foreign investments doesn't disqualify you, but refusing to disclose that info to the public would.
  #15  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:05 PM
enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,616
I would be fine with say a Constitution Amendment requiring this, but individual states doing this makes me uncomfortable. Lets face it, if this passes and survives court challenges, do you really think a bunch of purple states with GOP state governments won't try to weaponize it against the Democrats?
  #16  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:08 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
I would be fine with say a Constitution Amendment requiring this, but individual states doing this makes me uncomfortable. Lets face it, if this passes and survives court challenges, do you really think a bunch of purple states with GOP state governments won't try to weaponize it against the Democrats?
I'm sure they will, as seen with their efforts of weaponizing gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement, but that the republicans will try to find ways of turning anything into something that will override the will of the voters in their favor shouldn't paralyze the democrats into doing nothing.

Can you give me an example of how this could be weaponized?
  #17  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:12 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
3. "Americans have decided"? No, not really. A small minority of americans voted for trump, and some fraction of that didn't mind him not following the usual traditions and norms. That is not "Americans have decided."
63 million people voted for a candidate who not only didn't release his tax returns, but clumsily lied about why he wouldn't do it. I think it's safe to say that not releasing a tax return isn't a dealbreaker in this country, and I don't believe for a second that this is an R/D thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
4. Targeted at who? I don't get it. I mean, they would be targeted at people running for president, but not at any particular individual. Why do you make this claim?
Let's not be coy, these laws are 100% targeted at Trump, knowing that he'll be on the ballot in 2020. Does this even need to be said? Every other presidential candidate last election, and probably for the predictable future, will most likely voluntarily release their tax returns. The only candidate this will actually affect is Trump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
5. If they are just tax returns, then why not release them? Why did people start doing so?
I'm sure it was a stupid gimmick that made gullible people think their politicians were transparent even though none of them are.

Last edited by steronz; 03-21-2019 at 03:13 PM.
  #18  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:15 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I'm sure they will, as seen with their efforts of weaponizing gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement, but that the republicans will try to find ways of turning anything into something that will override the will of the voters in their favor shouldn't paralyze the democrats into doing nothing.

Can you give me an example of how this could be weaponized?
Sure. "Candidates have to release their college transcripts" laws being passed just ahead of the 2012 election.
  #19  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:18 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Can you give me an example of how this could be weaponized?
Pass a state law that says a person must be a registered Republican to be on the ballot?
  #20  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:19 PM
enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Can you give me an example of how this could be weaponized?
Unfortunately, I'm not as conniving, but I'm sure they would find other documents that would need to be provided that would disproportionately affect Democrats.
  #21  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:29 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
63 million people voted for a candidate who not only didn't release his tax returns, but clumsily lied about why he wouldn't do it. I think it's safe to say that not releasing a tax return isn't a dealbreaker in this country, and I don't believe for a second that this is an R/D thing.
And more voted against him, and even more didn't vote at all.

Just because it's not a complete deal breaker doesn't mean it has no use.
Quote:


Let's not be coy, these laws are 100% targeted at Trump, knowing that he'll be on the ballot in 2020. Does this even need to be said? Every other presidential candidate last election, and probably for the predictable future, will most likely voluntarily release their tax returns. The only candidate this will actually affect is Trump.
Nothing coy at all, not in the slightest, so lets not be presumptive, shall we?

We didn't need a law because we didn't need a law. Then trump came along, and said we did need a law. It is not targeted at him, any more that any law is targeted at those who don't follow it.

How do you know that all candidates in the future will release them? Trump may be setting a precedent for this.

Your statement that this will only affect Trump is completely without any form of support whatsoever.

It would be like saying that the debate over EC changes is just to target Trump. No, it is that Trump has pointed out a flaw in our system (by exploiting it), and we seek to fix that flaw.

If someone causes harm without breaking a law, and a law is passed to prevent that harm in the future, is that targeted at the person who initially caused harm? It would prevent them from doing so again, but that's not really targeting either.

If the law didn't go into effect until the 2024 cycle, would that mollify your concerns that people are being unfair to Trump?

Sure, all laws are targeted at people who don't follow them.
Quote:

I'm sure it was a stupid gimmick that made gullible people think their politicians were transparent even though none of them are.
And it is a real insight into actually seeing into the lives of someone who wants us to put our trust in them to lead the country.
  #22  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:31 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Sure. "Candidates have to release their college transcripts" laws being passed just ahead of the 2012 election.
I would not advocate for such a law, but so what if it were to pass? How does that weaponize it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Pass a state law that says a person must be a registered Republican to be on the ballot?
That would certainly fall under substantive, not administrative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
Unfortunately, I'm not as conniving, but I'm sure they would find other documents that would need to be provided that would disproportionately affect Democrats.
Must provide copy of CCW?
  #23  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:36 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
That would certainly fall under substantive, not administrative.
I don't know what the meaning of the difference between those two things is regarding ballots.
  #24  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:44 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I don't know what the meaning of the difference between those two things is regarding ballots.
It is not regarding ballots, it is regarding candidates.

Requiring someone to release their college transcripts would be administrative.

Requiring that they had a 3.5 GPA would be substantive.

So, requiring someone to disclose their party affiliation would be fine, of course, but requiring that they identify with a particular party would not be.
  #25  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:50 PM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,920
Not just the president, all elected and appointed officials of the government. They should be required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and that will go far beyond just their tax returns.

But I must be going to extremes, after all, who could imagine that a politician turns out to be a crook?
  #26  
Old 03-21-2019, 04:01 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I think there's a big difference between requirements for ballot access that are sort of administrative in nature (pay your fee, collect a certain number of signatures, etc) and those that are substantive but not part of the Constitution. I'd say that what's being proposed seems to fall on the substantive side of the line -- more akin to term limits than collecting signatures.

To put it another way, if the law says that states can't keep someone off the ballot based on how many terms in Congress they have served, I can't see how they can keep someone off the ballot for not disclosing their tax return.
It is a good point, though. I agree with you in that the Constitution sets out qualifications to be president or to be a member of Congress and according to the Term Limits case, the states cannot add to that. A state cannot say that since you already served two terms in Congress, we will not put you on the ballot. It cannot take underhanded measures either, like putting your name on the ballot but adding a tagline such as "This candidate has ignored the will of the voters regarding term limits."

But the other point is well taken. If a state requires a filing fee or campaign contribution disclosures, those items are likewise not constitutional qualifications for the office and if the state requires them, why is that not equally improper as adding term limits as a qualification?
  #27  
Old 03-21-2019, 04:02 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Not just the president, all elected and appointed officials of the government. They should be required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and that will go far beyond just their tax returns.

But I must be going to extremes, after all, who could imagine that a politician turns out to be a crook?
Yeah, I was thinking of going there as well. If you want to be a public official, then the public should know who you are.

I would have a problem with the govt acting as a gatekeeper. Like I said, if someone owes back taxes, that shouldn't be disqualifying. But the voters should get to know about it.
  #28  
Old 03-21-2019, 04:15 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
63 million people voted for a candidate who not only didn't release his tax returns, but clumsily lied about why he wouldn't do it. I think it's safe to say that not releasing a tax return isn't a dealbreaker in this country
Yeah, that's the thing. If you don't want a candidate who won't release his tax returns, don't vote for him. Treat it as a big red flag when you cast your ballot.

But if we can't trust people not to vote for horrible candidates, why can we trust them to make laws about who gets to be a candidate?
  #29  
Old 03-21-2019, 04:27 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Yeah, that's the thing. If you don't want a candidate who won't release his tax returns, don't vote for him. Treat it as a big red flag when you cast your ballot.

But if we can't trust people not to vote for horrible candidates, why can we trust them to make laws about who gets to be a candidate?
What if you have a candidate that says that he cannot release his tax returns because they are under investigation by the IRS, but that he will certainly definitely release them once that's over, who then gets elected, and says that because he was elected without his tax returns, he now doesn't need to show them?

Or, since that first has already happened, a hypothetical. One candidate refuses to release his tax returns, and so the other refuses as well, knowing that it would just put them at a disadvantage. What do you do with that red flag?

What is the reason for being against asking people seeking power in our government from having any measure of transparency? I get why they wouldn't want it, but why would the people like to have less knowledge about their candidates?
  #30  
Old 03-21-2019, 04:36 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It is a good point, though. I agree with you in that the Constitution sets out qualifications to be president or to be a member of Congress and according to the Term Limits case, the states cannot add to that. A state cannot say that since you already served two terms in Congress, we will not put you on the ballot. It cannot take underhanded measures either, like putting your name on the ballot but adding a tagline such as "This candidate has ignored the will of the voters regarding term limits."

But the other point is well taken. If a state requires a filing fee or campaign contribution disclosures, those items are likewise not constitutional qualifications for the office and if the state requires them, why is that not equally improper as adding term limits as a qualification?
Of course then this has me thinking and flip-flopping. The Constitution doesn't require, say, that I fill out a form to be listed on the ballot either, but I'm sure that no court would hold that such a requirement be unconstitutional.

Further the term limits cases and any additional qualifications (say requiring that the person be 45 instead of 35 for running for president) serve to act as a complete bar to a person running for office instead of imposing an administrative requirement.

So, I'm not sure that a requirement of releasing tax returns would not be more like an administrative requirement and not a complete bar like the unconstitutional items.
  #31  
Old 03-21-2019, 05:50 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If a state had requirements for what is on your return, that would be substantive. That you have to release it would be administrative.

So, just because you owe back taxes for your foreign investments doesn't disqualify you, but refusing to disclose that info to the public would.
So let's say that a state required all candidates to disclose the dates on which they had an abortion. Would that be an administrative matter?
  #32  
Old 03-21-2019, 05:55 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Can you elaborate? The eligibility for who can be president is laid out in the constitution, but is that the same thing as the eligibility for who must appear on the state ballot?
Nope. And as evidence of that people who are not NBC's that have appeared on state ballots for President. They do this knowing that the Vice-Presidential candidate would be President if elected.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #33  
Old 03-21-2019, 05:57 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The confidentiality of tax returns is protected by Federal law, because the IRS is a Federal agency. States don't get to overrule that.

Regards,
Shodan
I知 pretty sure those laws prohibit IRS employees or others with access to tax returns from leaking them; as opposed to prohibiting a person from releasing their own returns.

I知 pretty sure I had to release my tax returns to get a security clearance. Did the Federal government violate its own laws by requiring me to do that?
  #34  
Old 03-21-2019, 06:43 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
So let's say that a state required all candidates to disclose the dates on which they had an abortion. Would that be an administrative matter?
That would be an interesting proposal. What medical information can we demand from candidates? If it is just a question of abortion, there is obviously a disparate impact on the sexes, and is obviously motivated. I would consider that to be rather problematic in its discriminatory nature. If it is for a full medical report, then I could see the justification, for relevant medical data for performance on the job, but if you want to know about the woman's reproductive health, then we get to know about the guy's use of viagra, what his sperm count is, that sort of thing.

If it is full disclosure of all medical data that is needed, then it is gonna be full disclosure. How quickly would the congressman who proposes this measure shut up when he finds out that everyone will know his dick size?

This is different than taxes, as there is no disparate difference. Everyone is supposed to file taxes. Only a certain half of the population is able to get an abortion.
  #35  
Old 03-21-2019, 07:12 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,633
But my question wasn稚 whether the disclosure was discriminatory or a good idea. I知 asking your opinion as to whether it is administrative in nature.
  #36  
Old 03-21-2019, 09:52 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,531
If my neighbor wants to elect a candidate who refuses to release information about their income, that feels like their right. Enacting law or policy that prevents them from casting a vote for an otherwise constitutionally appropriate candidate does not seem appropriate to me.
  #37  
Old 03-21-2019, 10:02 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,830
As someone who would very much love to see Loser Donald's tax returns, I feel like this is a compelled speech issue that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.
  #38  
Old 03-21-2019, 10:12 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
If my neighbor wants to elect a candidate who refuses to release information about their income, that feels like their right. Enacting law or policy that prevents them from casting a vote for an otherwise constitutionally appropriate candidate does not seem appropriate to me.
What if the candidate refuses to disclose who has donated to his campaign? I fail to see how this is a distinction that makes some constitutional significance.
  #39  
Old 03-21-2019, 11:44 PM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,272
Requiring a person to disclose their tax returns is a pretty backwards and overly complicated way of doing this. Unfortunately it's all a state can really do (which means they probably can't do anything), but as far as federal law goes, Congress could just remove the privacy protections for presidential candidates' returns. Just make it so that if you file a presidential candidacy with the FEC, the IRS is required to release your returns.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 03-21-2019 at 11:47 PM.
  #40  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:15 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Requiring a person to disclose their tax returns is a pretty backwards and overly complicated way of doing this. Unfortunately it's all a state can really do (which means they probably can't do anything), but as far as federal law goes, Congress could just remove the privacy protections for presidential candidates' returns. Just make it so that if you file a presidential candidacy with the FEC, the IRS is required to release your returns.
Yeah, that's the real solution. It will have to wait until the Post-Trump Era (whenever that is--January 20, 2021 at the absolute latest, I sincerely hope-and assuming that there is a Post-Trump Era), but that's the way to do it--don't try to do it state by state, and don't put the onus on the candidates; just amend 26 U.S.C. 6103 to direct the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to make public the personal income tax returns* of all candidates for the office of President of the United States by such-and-such date (or by so-and-so many days before Election Day).

*Be sure to specify how many years back this goes, and also to include all the supporting Schedule This and Schedule That, and also some language in there about closely-held corporations and limited-liability partnerships and so on and so forth.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #41  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:31 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
If my neighbor wants to elect a candidate who refuses to release information about their income, that feels like their right. Enacting law or policy that prevents them from casting a vote for an otherwise constitutionally appropriate candidate does not seem appropriate to me.
They have the write-in option. This is about who can be on the ballot. There are plenty of other restrictions.
  #42  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:38 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,343
Aren't there a lot of jobs that require all kinds of disclosures before you can be hired (CEOs, CFOs, nuclear laboratory scientist, for example)? Should the most important job of all not require financial (and other) disclosures just because the Constitution doesn't specifically require it?

Last edited by I Love Me, Vol. I; 03-22-2019 at 12:40 AM.
  #43  
Old 03-22-2019, 08:27 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
It is not regarding ballots, it is regarding candidates.

Requiring someone to release their college transcripts would be administrative.

Requiring that they had a 3.5 GPA would be substantive.

So, requiring someone to disclose their party affiliation would be fine, of course, but requiring that they identify with a particular party would not be.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. What is the difference between "administrative" and "substantive" with regards to this topic? Is one not allowed due to some law or court case?
  #44  
Old 03-22-2019, 08:36 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
I don't think that this confidentiality prevents people from revealing their own returns.
You can reveal your own if you want to. A law that says you have to if you run for President is not revealing it because you want to.

Regards,
Shodan
  #45  
Old 03-22-2019, 08:39 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I知 pretty sure I had to release my tax returns to get a security clearance. Did the Federal government violate its own laws by requiring me to do that?
Were you required to release your tax returns to the general public?

Regards,
Shodan
  #46  
Old 03-22-2019, 08:46 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
You can reveal your own if you want to. A law that says you have to if you run for President is not revealing it because you want to.
Yes it is. If you want to be president you have to reveal your tax returns, just like people have to reveal their taxes and other information to get other jobs. No one is entitled to be president, running for president is a voluntary act.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Were you required to release your tax returns to the general public?
He was required to release his returns to potential employer. The potential employer of the president is the general public.
  #47  
Old 03-22-2019, 08:52 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
He was required to release his returns to potential employer. The potential employer of the president is the general public.
Well, the American public. We'd all have to agree not to tell anyone from outside the country.


People are making some very good points on both sides, and if I had to vote on it today, I'm not sure how I'd vote.
  #48  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:05 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,785
I think missing from this "other people have to submit to background checks for all kinds of jobs" discussion is my point 5, which is that we're not talking about background checks, or financial disclosures, or anything like that. Tax returns are practically worthless, right? None of these laws address the substantive issues of transparency and trust that would go along with a thorough, public background investigation because they deal in only one tiny, nearly irrelevant aspect of someone's history.

That's why I say that these laws are clearly revenge for Trump thumbing his nose at a 30-something year old convention and nothing more.
  #49  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:06 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
But my question wasn稚 whether the disclosure was discriminatory or a good idea. I知 asking your opinion as to whether it is administrative in nature.
I thought I did answer that, but in long form. Short form:

A report created by medical professionals on whether the candidate is physically and mentally capable of assuming the role of the office? Administrative.

You could still elect them. Say we find out that Biden has cancer and will probably not live out his term. We still love him though and he chooses a VP that everyone knows will be taking his place. We can elect him given that knowledge. Not knowing that he's gonna keel over 15 minutes after the inauguration would be worse.

A report on basic medical data, height, weight, blood pressure, stuff like that? Administrative.

A report based on in depth medical data, which would include basically everything in your medical history? Administrative. That would include abortions, but would also include erectile dysfunction.

A report focusing on only one specific medical procedure that can only be requested by a particular gender? Substantive.

For instance, I have no problem with the idea of requiring tax returns. But, I would have a problem with, rather than all candidates having to give full disclosure, just asking if anyone had donated to the NRA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
Aren't there a lot of jobs that require all kinds of disclosures before you can be hired (CEOs, CFOs, nuclear laboratory scientist, for example)? Should the most important job of all not require financial (and other) disclosures just because the Constitution doesn't specifically require it?
Yep. Personally, I would go well beyond just tax returns, and go for full financial disclosure. We should have at least as much info about the person we are going to give the keys to the country to as my bank needs from me to trust me with a couple bucks.
  #50  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:30 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Personally, I would go well beyond just tax returns, and go for full financial disclosure. We should have at least as much info about the person we are going to give the keys to the country to as my bank needs from me to trust me with a couple bucks.
This is what is needed. Or they could go the blind trust route and have very little to reveal. But we need to know if any of our officials have conflicts of interest.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright ゥ 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017