There’s absolutely nothing wrong with codifying this kind of requirement. Demonstrating that you’re not, say, directly profiting from your actions in office. And of course, it doesn’t just affect Trump, it affects any presidential candidate who insists that their tax status is beyond scrutiny, unlike any of the last 50 years of presidents and presidential candidates. It’s such basic shit that it actually kind of boggles the mind that it’s controversial.
As Little Nemo put it in the thread in question:
(Bolding mine.)
Maybe you should be asking yourself why you feel the need to paint basic anti-corruption measures as “cheating”. Like, if I was stuck in that kind of bizarro mental position, I’d have to wonder - where did things go wrong in my reasoning? Why am I defending this? (Maybe it has something to do with this: your best response to why they were obviously bad was to compare a basic anti-corruption step taken by every major candidate in every election since the 1970s to partisan policy proposals.)