Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:07 AM

"Trumps refusal to disclose his taxes prompts clever legislation in California"

I’m confident that this will pass because it’s California. If Der Trumpenfuehrer runs for re-election in 2020, this will, no doubt, end up in court and he will wear his little fingers to the bone tweeting about it. New York is considering similar legislation.

President-elect Donald Trump got away with never releasing his tax returns, despite the fact that virtually all other presidential candidates have done so for the past 40 years. But two California state Senators are authoring legislation that they say would make such disclosure a requirement — if the candidates want their names to appear on California ballots.

State Senators Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said that their bill is in direct response to Trump’s refusal to make his taxes public.

Wiener stated:

“The American public deserves to know that the individual they are selecting to be president will have their best interests at the heart of every decision, not the best interests of any business venture or investment fund. Requiring that this basic financial information be made available to voters will help build critical public trust.”

Or as McGuire put it, “This legislation will help make transparency great again.”

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/22/1613825/--Trump-s-refusal-to-disclose-his-taxes-prompts-clever-legislation-in-California

101 replies, 15008 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

101 replies	Author	Time	Post
"Trumps refusal to disclose his taxes prompts clever legislation in California" (Original post)	Madam45for2923	Dec 2016	OP
WOW! Way to FIGHT BACK, CALIFORNIA!	Cha	Dec 2016	#1
Yes, Cha! Hope more States will follow. We must never have a pres candidate w/o their taxes!	Madam45for2923	Dec 2016	#2
NEVER! Because we can't EVER Depend on Media****** for	Cha	Dec 2016	#3
Exactly. The media became an arm of the KGB this cycle, no bones about it	LaydeeBug	Dec 2016	#59
major media tidbit tonight in DC here	wordpix	Dec 2016	#71
I seriously doubt Trump will run for re-election if he manages to finish his first term.	maddiemom	Dec 2016	#13
I seriously doubt tRump will finish his first term	meow2u3	Dec 2016	#46
Add "resign out of frustration"	jmowreader	Dec 2016	#47
Congress is full of money grubbing Trumpists so don't count on them to uphold the Constit.	wordpix	Dec 2016	#69
Seriously, this Congress hold the line? I doubt it ...	LenaBaby61	Dec 2016	#87
candidates should get a psycho test to,	yortsed snacilbuper	Dec 2016	#4
Right on!	LongTomH	Dec 2016	#21
Medical and drug too	evilhime	Dec 2016	#33
Hitler was a speed freak freak	zippythepinhead	Dec 2016	#51
Unconstitutional. I think every Court would invalidate the law.	yeoman6987	Dec 2016	#5
Under what reasoning?	NobodyHere	Dec 2016	#6
What in the constitution prevents this?	Thor_MN	Dec 2016	#10
This would provide a limitation not in the Constitution.	former9thward	Dec 2016	#45
Nonsense. Ballot access is set at the state level.	Thor_MN	Dec 2016	#54
Sure	former9thward	Dec 2016	#55
Where is the language that prevents states from setting ballot access laws?	Thor_MN	Dec 2016	#56
Nothin, quite the opposite, see my post below re Article II Section I	stevenleser	Dec 2016	#61
So you are claiming that anyone who is 35, natural born and 14 years a resident can appear on the	whopis01	Dec 2016	#62
Do you think a state could pass a law saying a Presidential candidate has to be 45?	former9thward	Dec 2016	#64
To answer that question you have to start with what he Constitution says regarding thr	stevenleser	Dec 2016	#67
No. You seem rather confused by what I wrote.	whopis01	Dec 2016	#101
Nope, read Article II section I. Voters are voting to select electors and Article II Section I	stevenleser	Dec 2016	#60
What does appointing electors have to do with requiring a candidate	former9thward	Dec 2016	#66
Because that is what the election is for in each state. You are not voting for President	stevenleser	Dec 2016	#68
I know how electors are chosen and what their role is.	former9thward	Dec 2016	#73
I already answered that question above. But to be clear...	stevenleser	Dec 2016	#75
There are already requirements	DK504	Dec 2016	#11
If applied to all federal elections...	mwooldri	Dec 2016	#39
Bull shit	Emilybemily	Dec 2016	#41
Yeah...	40degreesflaps	Dec 2016	#42
Nope, the Constitution grants state legislatures the power to do this and	stevenleser	Dec 2016	#63
But If...	40degreesflaps	Dec 2016	#88
It's worth the effort...	Rollo	Dec 2016	#100
California is the only state that requires charities (501 C's) to file Schedule B's of their 990	underpants	Dec 2016	#52
CA under Jerry Brown looks better all the time	wordpix	Dec 2016	#74
Additional qualifications on president not stated in the Contitution	MichMan	Dec 2016	#7
It wouldn't be an additional qualification on being President	dumbcat	Dec 2016	#17
Yeah, but he was never going to win California even if he was on the ballot.	milestogo	Dec 2016	#8
I think this analysys misses a couple tricks	quakerboy	Dec 2016	#49
I like the concept	JustAnotherGen	Dec 2016	#9
Boom goes the dynamite	lark	Dec 2016	#12
Is there a Lawyer in the house?	safeinOhio	Dec 2016	#14
This sounds like a good idea!	Madam45for2923	Dec 2016	#24
Not likely that a court would order disclosure of his tax returns.	Jim Lane	Dec 2016	#35
i think this is possible constitutionally, but republicans write off california anyway.	unblock	Dec 2016	#15
They can write off states, but if they don't show up on the ballot in those states, it will be	Squinch	Dec 2016	#29
I like it - but, go a step further	packman	Dec 2016	#16
Great idea!	treestar	Dec 2016	#18
Every State That Has A Dem Legislature Should Do The Same...	global1	Dec 2016	#19
And every state with a RePug legislature	dumbcat	Dec 2016	#26
That would be great!	revmclaren	Dec 2016	#30
NICE !!! I don't see how they fight this in court!!!	uponit7771	Dec 2016	#20
"... not the best interests of any business venture or investment fund."	mahatmakanejeeves	Dec 2016	#22
I applaud them - but it's all for naught as long as the Electoral College decides.	tenorly	Dec 2016	#23
If they are not on the state ballet, they do not get the states electoral votes.	revmclaren	Dec 2016	#31
Sure. But I doubt we'll ever see bills like this from red/swing states (where it could cost the GOP)	tenorly	Dec 2016	#34
every blue state should consider similar laws tied for all running in all primary and main elections	beachbum bob	Dec 2016	#25
They should require all medical records and college papers	hughee99	Dec 2016	#27
hell why not make a requirement that unless every single party candidate released full disclosure	beachbum bob	Dec 2016	#28
Pass This In Florida	OldYallow	Dec 2016	#32
In this state run and for republicans???	mitch96	Dec 2016	#36
All the blue states need to do this. He won't be on their ballots for 2020.	OregonBlue	Dec 2016	#37
Does it really matter?	AllenJordan	Dec 2016	#38
Im pretty sure Trump will simply say, "FU CA, I don't need you to win"	aikoaiko	Dec 2016	#40
This will be fun to watch	Gothmog	Dec 2016	#43
Primaries are fairly new and the party could go the convention route, if	CK_John	Dec 2016	#44
This is a good idea, but it won't work...	Mike Nelson	Dec 2016	#48
See Article II Section I of the Constitution regarding the choosing of electors. nt	stevenleser	Dec 2016	#65
the law proposed is a state law	wordpix	Dec 2016	#76
McMullin couldn't get on many states' ballots because of state laws	Ilsa	Dec 2016	#50
Love it. When its put on the ballot here in Cali, I will be voting YES on it nt	iluvtennis	Dec 2016	#53
great idea!	yurbud	Dec 2016	#57
That will certainly dash Trump's chances of winning California in 2020.	fescuerescue	Dec 2016	#58
It's a fun concept to think about, but	briv1016	Dec 2016	#70
Nope, that Federal law would be Unconstitutional.	stevenleser	Dec 2016	#72
But they can use the Voting Rights Act as precedent to pass the law.	briv1016	Dec 2016	#77
Nope, they can't. Similar to what i said to someone else above, restrictions on the	stevenleser	Dec 2016	#79
I'm not disagreeing with you.	briv1016	Dec 2016	#84
Obama needs to issue an EO to put Garland on the bench	wordpix	Dec 2016	#81
your argument that choosing electors equals CA requiring tax disclosure doesn't work	wordpix	Dec 2016	#78
Nope, it would be a simple law, to wit:	stevenleser	Dec 2016	#80
OK I'm seeing it. On edit:	wordpix	Dec 2016	#83
Yep. What came out in the 2000 recount is that this is one of those ticking timebombs in the	stevenleser	Dec 2016	#86
Love it! Great idea!	InAbLuEsTaTe	Dec 2016	#82
"Make transparency great again. Great line, I'm gonna use it locally	wordpix	Dec 2016	#85
Love that saying	crazycatlady	Dec 2016	#98
And The GOP Response Would Be	DallasNE	Dec 2016	#89
has to happen in red states, NY and CA won't matter. It's winner take all, remember. n/t	Hamlette	Dec 2016	#90
If we can't all move to California,	efhmc	Dec 2016	#91
Would this apply to primaries as well?	temporary311	Dec 2016	#92
Not sure! Makes sense to start from the primaries. We need transparency starting then.	Madam45for2923	Dec 2016	#94
What about demanding this information before . . .	MrModerate	Dec 2016	#93
States don't have airspace. All US airspace is governed and controlled by the FAA.	Calista241	Dec 2016	#95
Air Traffic Control mostly sits in California. n/t	MrModerate	Dec 2016	#99
Blue California will save our nation.	oasis	Dec 2016	#96
K & R	Scurrilous	Dec 2016	#97

Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:13 AM

Cha (286,511 posts)

1. WOW! Way to FIGHT BACK, CALIFORNIA!

Best news I've heard, Madam.. Thank you!

the m$media****** didn't go after dump's tax returns at all.. too busy droning on Hillary's emails.

“This legislation will help make transparency great again.”

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/22/1613825/--Trump-s-refusal-to-disclose-his-taxes-prompts-clever-legislation-in-California

"Trumps refusal to disclose his taxes prompts clever legislation in California"

1. WOW! Way to FIGHT BACK, CALIFORNIA!

2. Yes, Cha! Hope more States will follow. We must never have a pres candidate w/o their taxes!

3. NEVER! Because we can't EVER Depend on Media****** for

59. Exactly. The media became an arm of the KGB this cycle, no bones about it

71. major media tidbit tonight in DC here

13. I seriously doubt Trump will run for re-election if he manages to finish his first term.

46. I seriously doubt tRump will finish his first term

47. Add "resign out of frustration"

69. Congress is full of money grubbing Trumpists so don't count on them to uphold the Constit.

87. Seriously, this Congress hold the line? I doubt it ...

4. candidates should get a psycho test to,

21. Right on!

33. Medical and drug too

51. Hitler was a speed freak freak

5. Unconstitutional. I think every Court would invalidate the law.

6. Under what reasoning?

10. What in the constitution prevents this?

45. This would provide a limitation not in the Constitution.

54. Nonsense. Ballot access is set at the state level.

55. Sure

56. Where is the language that prevents states from setting ballot access laws?

61. Nothin, quite the opposite, see my post below re Article II Section I

62. So you are claiming that anyone who is 35, natural born and 14 years a resident can appear on the

64. Do you think a state could pass a law saying a Presidential candidate has to be 45?

67. To answer that question you have to start with what he Constitution says regarding thr

101. No. You seem rather confused by what I wrote.

60. Nope, read Article II section I. Voters are voting to select electors and Article II Section I

66. What does appointing electors have to do with requiring a candidate

68. Because that is what the election is for in each state. You are not voting for President

73. I know how electors are chosen and what their role is.

75. I already answered that question above. But to be clear...

11. There are already requirements

39. If applied to all federal elections...

41. Bull shit

42. Yeah...

63. Nope, the Constitution grants state legislatures the power to do this and

88. But If...

100. It's worth the effort...

52. California is the only state that requires charities (501 C's) to file Schedule B's of their 990

74. CA under Jerry Brown looks better all the time

7. Additional qualifications on president not stated in the Contitution

17. It wouldn't be an additional qualification on being President

8. Yeah, but he was never going to win California even if he was on the ballot.

49. I think this analysys misses a couple tricks

9. I like the concept

12. Boom goes the dynamite

14. Is there a Lawyer in the house?

24. This sounds like a good idea!

35. Not likely that a court would order disclosure of his tax returns.

15. i think this is possible constitutionally, but republicans write off california anyway.

29. They can write off states, but if they don't show up on the ballot in those states, it will be

16. I like it - but, go a step further

18. Great idea!

19. Every State That Has A Dem Legislature Should Do The Same...

26. And every state with a RePug legislature

30. That would be great!

20. NICE !!! I don't see how they fight this in court!!!

22. "... not the best interests of any business venture or investment fund."

23. I applaud them - but it's all for naught as long as the Electoral College decides.

31. If they are not on the state ballet, they do not get the states electoral votes.

34. Sure. But I doubt we'll ever see bills like this from red/swing states (where it could cost the GOP)

25. every blue state should consider similar laws tied for all running in all primary and main elections

27. They should require all medical records and college papers

28. hell why not make a requirement that unless every single party candidate released full disclosure

32. Pass This In Florida

36. In this state run and for republicans???

37. All the blue states need to do this. He won't be on their ballots for 2020.

38. Does it really matter?

40. Im pretty sure Trump will simply say, "FU CA, I don't need you to win"

43. This will be fun to watch

44. Primaries are fairly new and the party could go the convention route, if

48. This is a good idea, but it won't work...

65. See Article II Section I of the Constitution regarding the choosing of electors. nt

76. the law proposed is a state law

50. McMullin couldn't get on many states' ballots because of state laws

53. Love it. When its put on the ballot here in Cali, I will be voting YES on it nt

57. great idea!

58. That will certainly dash Trump's chances of winning California in 2020.

70. It's a fun concept to think about, but