I doubt it is that easy. At least, if Congressional disclosure requirements are anything at all like the disclosures I am required to make under the STOCK Act. I have to report transactions, and am unaware of any provision saying value must exceed $x every single day of the past year.
This is the website from house.gov which has the guidelines for the Financial Disclosure reports. I found nothing about that 1000 dollar balance, but I didn’t read the entire site.
It’s that easy. Almost. Sort of. Here are the rules:
Reportable Assets
Real and personal property held by you, your spouse, or a dependent child as an investment or for the production of income must be disclosed on Schedule A if it had a value in excess of $1,000 at the close of the reporting period or generated unearned income in excess of $200 during the reporting period.
So everything is as of a particular day. But the money has to go somewhere, and the list of reportable asset types is long. The paycheck to paycheck hypothesis is dubious, but accusing someone in print of a crime requires some care, which might explain the Daily Beast’s characterization. (IMHO!)
Quote from p 14 https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/Final%20Combined%202023%20Instruction%20Guide.pdf
ETA: Is a repurchase agreement a corporate security? He could be hiding his assets via a loophole. That’s not a crime. It is, however, a deception. IANAL, I don’t know if there’s a loophole here, and frankly this seems less than probable.
Yeah, if he transferred the money out of those accounts for that one day, he’d have to transfer it somewhere else, and then he’d have to report that asset.
Again: He’s just plain lying. This is the only hypothesis that is consistent with the evidence.
I hope some liberal dark money groups are investigating Johnson’s personal life. I highly suspect that any supposedly straight man who advocates for as many anti gay policies as he does has a high likelihood of being a deeply closeted gay man.
Re the disclosure issue, I suspect he will put in a corrected form. I believe in the requirement, and it’s a sign of irresponsibility to fill out the form that way, but not big as scandals go.
Really disturbing to me is his low and meritless smear of the President.
Johnson Accused Biden of Bribery
In the days of our founding fathers, this would lead to a duel.
I fear the last post, regarding Johnson being in the closet, is also a smear, but it isn’t coming from the Speaker of the House.
A smear would be something negative - like that he likes to molest puppies. But there’s nothing wrong with being gay, despite what bigots (and possibly self hating closeted gay men) like Johnson say.
It does however have the side effect of making them very unpopular with the RW homophobic electorate that put him / them in Washington in the first place. And just as with the Gaetz and the FC lunacy, once one of the R pols is publicly known to have teh gay, the others all have to line up in denunciation lest they too be removed from office for being insufficiently homophobic to suit their voters.
It’s a nasty and cowardly piece of work from end to end. But it is an interlocking and self-reinforcing piece of nasty cowardice.
I don’t think it’s even possible for any straight man to be homophobic any more.
You obviously don’t know my right-wing acquaintances.
Or perhaps you don’t know them as well as you think 
Yeah - you’re right. I DO have to report all of my assets as of the END of the reporting period. So when I report in April-May, I have to look up value as of the preceding 12/31. I confused myself by misinterpreting LSL’s post as suggesting it need only dip below $1k on any random day during the year. My bad.
And, as folk observe, unless he cashed out an account and hid it in a mattress (which he would need to report if he withdrew $10k in cash), if he took it out of 1 account, presumably he would be putting it in another. AND, as I observed, he’d have to report the purchases and sales. (Have I mentioned lately how much I DETEST those damn Form 278s?!)
Legislators routinely file to amend their financial disclosure reports, sometimes years after initially filing them. They almost never face any consequences for doing so.
I personally doubt that Johnson is failing to report in order to mask some sort of nefarious financial dealings. The reports themselves are so nonspecific – e.g. asset values are reported in broad bands rather than specific dollar amounts – that they’d be pretty useless for exposing financial shenanigans.
Quite so. We’ve seen how often many of the “constitutional” officials as in Congress, the Prez, SCOTUS (*), pretty much just make the point of meeting the requirement to file “a” report on the due date, if there is one, and then submit an amended form when and if something’s called out.
Johnson may simply be exhibiting plain old vulgar “why should I comply unless and until they MAKE me” attitude.
(* Now, sure, have someone in the Exec Service or in Leg/Court Staff do that, they are getting the works. Some animals are more equal than others.)
Note that excludes a non-interest bearing checking account.
A bit too much interest in Mike. He will get to the budget bill votes whenever that is. He will get nothing from Democrats. The gov’t will shut down for about 2 weeks. Johnson gets something passed, a compromise. The Freedom Caucus gets mad. They vote him out of he resigns.
Actually the software in question (Covenant Eyes) goes beyond just a log of activity.
The activity feed will show the images that it found on your “accountability ally’s” device, but blurred. It’s…kinky, you have to try to guess what’s happening by seeing an arrangement of fuzzy limbs and a phallic shape, say. If you’re…intrigued…you can reduce the blur level. (cite)
Mike Johnson seems like a genuinely strange person. I definitely don’t want to know what my son is looking at. Seriously, WTF?
Again, there’s no evidence that he wants this. Based on other such people I know, I’d speculate that it’s a LOT more about control, boosted by the good feeling they get from enforcing moral purity in their dependents. See Iran for why this is a bad idea in politicians.
There’s probably also a side of using his son to make sure that he doesn’t watch porn himself, which to my mind is really a inappropriate role for one’s minor children, even passively.
I am guessing his daughters have different and more burdensome restrictions on their sexuality, or will have—I don’t know how old his kids are.
I just don’t see any evidence that his son has ever watched porn (on a device his father knew about) or that his father has any interest (that he’s consciously aware of) in seeing such porn.
I would think that he would have the son monitoring him out of fairness. “I watch you, you watch me.” or “you have to put up with this, so do I.”