Since the whole issue is focused on Trump, it’s impossible to believe that this is not about Trump. I mean, how much of a sucker do these states think we are?
Link.
I mean, when even Jerry Brown vetoes a proposal while calling it “politically attractive,” of course this isn’t just about transparency.
More specifically, it’s to keep tax frauds and financial criminals out of office. If that is an issue for Trump, in a way that has *not *been an issue for any other candidate in the last 40 years, anyone objecting to it needs to take it up with Trump.
How is forcing candidates to release their tax returns part of the “manner” of the election?
I agree. Of course this is about Trump. IANAL, but I don’t think that’s enough for it to be struck down. We’ll see if some other part of it is.
Only if a state actually enacts one of these bills.
If a state is stupid enough to openly use this as a rationale for the bill, I don’t think it will be a long or complicated case.
States may not use their limited authority to regulate the manner of federal elections to “dictate electoral outcomes [or] favor or disfavor a class of candidates” (cite).
Felons are ineligible to hold office. Are you declaring people under investigation (either criminal or Congressional or both) for felonies to be “a class of candidates”?
There’s this dusty old idea in this country of a presumption of innocence. “Under investigation” is not the same as convicted (a fact for which HRC ought to be especially grateful).
Your comment about HRC should, out of honesty, have noted that there was zero evidence to support any of that. Refusal to provide tax returns is an act of concealment of evidence, which *is *evidence in itself.
Of course, if defense of Trump, no matter what he does, really is reflexive for someone, there’s no point in engaging that person.
“Ain’t got enough to convict me!” as a rallying cry for Republicans?
I like it.
I’m dying of laughter over here. 
Point taken.
Lock him up! Lock him up!
And the result of taking this action would be to keep someone off the ballot. It’s really weird contortions to be able to say that this isn’t about keeping anyone off the ballot. That is precisely the consequence of this proposal.
It’s like passing a law that criminalizes stealing with prison as the consequence, and then claiming it’s not about sending anyone to prison. Of course it is.
Why is that the consequence, and why are you certain of this? Why wouldn’t Trump just meet the requirement?
No, it is about curtailing as much as possible a certain behaviour.
I disagree. Our side of the aisle is trying to make sure that Trump has as few days as possible left in the White House. That is a worthy goal.
One of his top vulnerabilities is his terrible business acumen, the almost-certain shady deals he has engaged in, and the real possibility that he pays almost no Federal taxes (and is very likely much, much less rich than he claims). His tax returns would shine a light on most of that, so Dems are trying to get them in order to make sure Trump isn’t re-elected (and in a remote possibility, maybe even impeached).
I am just not buying that this issue has anything other to do than an attack on Trump (which he has earned, of course) to damage him and maybe hasten his departure. If it were about confidence in the electoral process generally, and an anti-corruption measure, I would suspect that the requirement to release tax returns and other financial disclosures would apply more broadly – like, perhaps to governors, senators, etc. Instead, it’s only about one office, which bolsters my conclusion that all of this is really about Trump.
I’m totally fine with attacking Trump on his tax evasion and lies about his wealth. This is also a case in which his hiding his taxes may in fact be more damaging than releasing them – after all, if his vain nature compels him to cover up a tax return with no wrongdoing but modest income, we can all continue to speculate about his REAL reasons for not releasing his taxes. But let’s not pretend that this issue is fundamentally about ethics reform for our general welfare; it is about reforming rules to defeat one particularly unethical person.
It’s about Trump, but it’s also about a broader issue – codifying what until now had been standard but unwritten practice for presidential candidates. And that practice really was a good thing, that provided some benefit to our democracy. It’s reasonable to want to codify such practices into law, as long as doing so doesn’t violate any laws (which it may – IANAL).
No, that would be discriminatory against someone who is affiliated with the non-dominant religion. To my understanding (unless Republicans have finally gotten their way without me noticing), tax cheat isn’t a protected class.
Sure its about Trump in the same way that Bumpstock regulations were about Stephan Paddock. The election of Trump showed a flaw in the system that needed to be corrected.
No it isn’t. If passing such a law results in no stealing and therefore no one being sent to prison, it would be heralded as a huge success. So such a law isn’t about sending prison, its about preventing stealing.
In the larger scope of things, there’s a much more serious ethical problem regarding elected officials: so-called “insider” trading among legislators who profit off of the policies they write or information they get as a result of their duties. Example.
If ethics were the issue, keeping these kleptocrats off the ballot absent some disclosure of their financial dealings would be a much more salubrious measure for the health of our democracy than a plan to attack one of Trump’s weak spots. After all, there isn’t even a fig leaf of tradition that Collins and his ilk are breaking; they are just getting away with it in plain sight. Literally everyone knows Trump isn’t releasing his taxes.
I’d be all for such requirements, and I don’t see any conflict between supporting such requirements and supporting this one.