General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Trumps refusal to disclose his taxes prompts clever legislation in California"
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 Trumps 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
Cha
(304,374 posts)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
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Cha
(304,374 posts)ANYTHING.
be funny if dump couldn't get on the ballot in certain states because of his tax returns.. let him tweet on that.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)but I am not sure how scary this really is. When was the last time a KGOPBer carried California in a Presidential election? Reagan?
wordpix
(18,652 posts)WH press corps getting a boost with more reporters per media source, reportedly NYT putting 8 or 9 on WH coverage, as are other major media. Each reporter to be assigned a certain topic, e.g. health care, environment. My source was asked if there's space for all these people and she said the last press conf. was so hot and crowded someone fainted. That was before the add-ons.
Also said everyone's in an uproar---not knowing if there will even be press conf's anymore.
I personally am heartened to hear that our MSM corporate media and NYT have deemed to cover the goings on of King Con.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)He wanted to BE elected POTUS, but doesn't really want the actual day-to-day job.
meow2u3
(24,899 posts)Either he'll end up dying in office of a heart attack (his eating habits are a heart attack waiting to occur), or will be impeached or resign out of boredom.
jmowreader
(51,316 posts)As soon as Congress tells him they're not going to do anything unconstitutional just because Trump wants it, the National Archives tells him he has to print out and retain all his tweets as public records, and the press stops kissing his ass, Trump will decide he doesn't want the job and will pack up his shit and leave.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)seriously, this Congress hole the line? I doubt it
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)Totally agree.
Bunch of DEVILS
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,947 posts)Dubya said god told him to invade Iraq.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)With an emphasis on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy; the traits that make up The Dark Triad.
I would also add tests for dementia and Alzheimer's. It's been suggested that Trump has an early onset variant of dementia and Ronnie Raygun was definitely suffering from Alzheimer's, at least during his second term.
evilhime
(326 posts)I truly believe he is on speed... apparently he has a history of prescription amphetamine use for weight loss etc., and it would certainly explain his erratic behavior, his sleeping habits. etc. I so think the country should have known his complete medical history not just his trumpism "I am the healthiest individual to ever run for president" . . . say wha'?
zippythepinhead
(374 posts)Justt saying.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)States are generally free to create their own elections laws, provided that they are non-discriminatory. Since the law would be applied to all candidates, it is inherently non-discriminatory.
former9thward
(33,388 posts)Not allowed. States are not free to create their own election laws which provide qualifications on federal candidates not in the Constitution.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Please cite the specific language that you believe disallows a state from creating ballot access laws.
former9thward
(33,388 posts)No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5
You have to be 35, natural born, and 14 years a resident. Period. Nothing about having to release tax returns or anything else.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I see nothing there prohibiting a state from doing whatever they please. The states make their own election law.
By your opinion, all states would have uniform rules and getting on the ballot would be dead simple. There are more than 50 sets of laws to gain access in all the states and territories, which would tend to disprove your assertion.
But I'm willing to learn what in the constitution backs your claim.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The Constitution grants states wide powers to determine how their electors are chosen.
whopis01
(3,700 posts)ballot if they want to? With no other requirements at all?
Do you really believe that is how it works?
former9thward
(33,388 posts)In order to get on their ballot. Do you really believe that is how it works?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Choosing of electors. Article II Section I makes that clear. The states have wide latitude for how that is done. That's what each states election for President is, it's that states framework for how their electors are chosen.
So states could pass requirements that each candidate could reasonably meet such as releasing their tax returns. Where the age requirement that you posit could be an issue is that it would be discriminatory on the basis of something a candidate could not change about themselves. Releasing a tax return would not pose such an issue.
whopis01
(3,700 posts)I am not sure why you would read that into what I said. It is really quite bizarre.
What I believe is that each state has different rules for deciding who gets to be on a ballot. In many states, California for example, it is up to the Secretary of State to decide.
The requirements for being an eligible candidate for president and the requirements to appear on a ballot by name are not the same. Anyone can run as a write in candidate if they meet the constitutional requirements.
Here are the laws regarding ballot access in each state.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Basically gives state legislatures Carter Blanche to determine how their states electors will be chosen.
Section 1 - The Text
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
former9thward
(33,388 posts)to release tax returns. The applicable section of the Constitution is Article I not II.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You are voting for electors. This came up again and again during the Florida election of 2000.
You are participating in the choosing of electors as determine by the legislature in that state per Article II Section I.
If you do research on this, you will find out very quickly that I am right.
former9thward
(33,388 posts)Do you think it would be ok for a state to say presidential candidates have to be 45 in order to appear on their ballot?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Just because a state or the federal government has the power to do something doesn't entitle them to be discriminatory towards anyone in exercise of that power. So beyond the rules already in place regarding age, no, state legislatures could not put restrictions on age, nor could they place restrictions on race or religion.
DK504
(3,847 posts)for candidates must meet to get on every ballot.
mwooldri
(10,373 posts)... then it is constitutional. Release X years of tax returns to run for federal office. Fair, equal. Plus it is presently the role of the state to determine its election laws.
Emilybemily
(204 posts)It is not unConstitutional in any way.
40degreesflaps
(88 posts)...it's a nice idea but there's no way to make it stick. One lawsuit filed in Federal court and out it goes.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)many other things with respect to how their electors are chosen.
40degreesflaps
(88 posts)...most of the state legislatures are Republican, why bother?
Rollo
(2,559 posts)Because California alone accounts for 55 electoral votes. New York, 29. (or 28 I forget). This is a sizeable chunk of the EC. Granted, Hillary won both CA and NY, but would Trump want to risk not being on the ballot in both states in 2020?
As for the constitutionality, as I recall, the 10th Amendment states that powers not enumerated for the Federal Government devolve to the states. Therefore, any state could, if they wanted, establish release of tax returns as prerequisite for being listed on the state ballot, because it is a power not enumerated for the Federal government. Yet.
I like it.
underpants
(186,156 posts)I used to do the registrations for such a charity in 27 states. If they can require certain documents in order for charities to fundraise why can't they require it for this?
wordpix
(18,652 posts)MichMan
(12,985 posts)No different than a state mandating requirements that they must be between the ages of 40-65, college graduates, serve in the military, members of the Democratic party, pro choice, own dogs, drive hybrid vehicles, etc etc
Of course when we get the Constitutional Amendment passed to get rid of the EC, we could throw income tax disclosure in as well
dumbcat
(2,128 posts)not stated in the Constitution. It would be a qualification to be listed on a state ballot, of which there are already many. Time limits, petitions signatures, etc.
Now, of course, red controlled states could also make it a requirement for all persons to swear allegiance to the KKK to appear on their ballots.
I don't think this is gonna work, though.
milestogo
(17,297 posts)quakerboy
(14,093 posts)First.. this would mean any candidate not releasing their returns would find it very hard to even compete in the EC. instead of being a mere (!?!) 3 million down, trumpy would have come out 7 million down. Just on California alone.
But possibly more importantly... if they go further into it.. if they could apply it in the primaries.. it becomes somewhat difficult to get the nod in the first place.
JustAnotherGen
(33,268 posts)Not sure if he can be held to it.
We may be better to allow Congress and the Senate at Betsy Devos' request to dismantle public schools (will hurt red states severely) and get Trump to sign off on it. When they have to pay out of pocket because their vouchers don't cover the full cost . . .
We aren't seeing those tax returns unless someone "obtains" the hard copies and publishes them.
lark
(24,002 posts)States rights and all that, this will be fine as long as one of the liberal SCOTUS don't retire or get killed. If that happens, we might as well crown him emperor for life and call ourselves the 4th Reich.
safeinOhio
(33,877 posts)Any chance, in one of the many law suites with him, they could be included in Discovery? Not that many courts take discovery very seriously.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I assume that such disclosure is what you mean.
Most courts do take discovery very seriously. The old days of trial by ambush are over. Litigants must make extensive disclosures, on pain of having sanctions applied, up to and including having the case determined against them without ever going to a jury.
Nevertheless, courts recognize that tax returns include a great deal of information that implicates privacy concerns. A party would have to make a strong showing of relevance to the case. For example, a contractor who was stiffed on a bill or a special prosecutor investigating something like the Bondi donations would have no legitimate basis for obtaining Trump's complete tax returns.
If some particular item on the returns were deemed potentially relevant, Trump might be ordered to produce the returns in camera, meaning that the documents are provided only to court personnel, not to the opposing litigants or their lawyers. For purposes of the case, the court might say only something like "The court has confirmed that Mr. Trump took a deduction of $___ for thus-and-such."
These are the standards that are applied to any ordinary litigant. That Trump is President would not give any special privileges, but the flip side is that no court would order disclosure out of a belief that the President's finances should be public knowledge. Disclosure would have to relate to the much narrower issues in the particular case that was pending before that judge. I won't rule it out completely, but it's very unlikely.
unblock
(54,052 posts)technically, the states aren't requirement to have presidential elections at all, believe it or not. the legislature can simply pick the electors themselves.
plus, there are already ballot requirements, e.g., a certain number of signatures by a certain date, etc. seems to me they can require certain additional information as part of the ballot requirements.
that said, it only keeps toxic trump off the california ballot, and we all know he's losing california anyway.
i just hope republicans can't figure out some comparable requirement that keeps a democratic candidate off the ballot in what would otherwise be a battleground state, such as florida.
Squinch
(52,352 posts)very damaging to them.
A candidate that couldn't get onto the NY or California ballot? Or MA or CT? They're not going to want to pick such a person.
packman
(16,296 posts)require that all physical, health records be released as well as (here I'm dreaming the impossible) undergoing several sessions with a psychiatrist.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It only takes one state, too, since once they are out, they are out.
global1
(25,856 posts)make it a requirement to have any candidate that wants to run for president and be listed on that states ballot disclose their taxes.
Repugs (i.e. the KGOP) are always pro states rights so it would be hard for them to challenge this. And after what the Repugs (KGOP) recently pulled on the newly elected Dem Governor - this tax thing in Dem states would be a good response.
dumbcat
(2,128 posts)can make it a requirement to disclose all college transcripts, high school records, birth records, lawsuit records, divorce proceedings, previously sealed records, etc. Be careful what you wish for.
revmclaren
(2,613 posts)Many of those would have sunk Trump before he even got to the primaries especially the lawsuit records and sealed documents.
uponit7771
(91,350 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(60,489 posts)Or foreign power.
tenorly
(2,037 posts)And as we've just learned, the Rapepublicans have learned how to win in the E.C. even with large losses in the popular vote.
revmclaren
(2,613 posts)tenorly
(2,037 posts)Just imagine: if Albany and Sacramento had had legislation like that on the books already, King Con would have lost the national popular vote by upwards of 10 million - and still be President-elect today.
As long as only progressive states like California and New York pass such legislation, rather than federally by Congress as it should be, these reforms are unlikely to make a real impact on a GOP candidate's electability - especially with all the nifty new voter suppression bills they've been passing.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)that any candidate running for any office must have TOTAL financial disclosure of everything to be placed on the ballot or considered for elected office....
hughee99
(16,113 posts)As well. Perhaps it's too much to ask, but they should also require that the candidate be a Democrat.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)that NO candidate of that party can be placed on the ballot....
OldYallow
(90 posts)Where it really matters.
mitch96
(14,564 posts)I think not... Herr Scott would never hear of it..
m
OregonBlue
(7,861 posts)AllenJordan
(17 posts)Very few republicans care about CA. It is typically a given for democrats.
aikoaiko
(34,201 posts)And he doesn't.
Gothmog
(153,721 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)it even will passes muster in the courts.
Mike Nelson
(10,246 posts)...California can't make federal law and Republicans would not let it go national.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)Ilsa
(62,173 posts)requiring a deadline to be listed. Deadlines, if even present everwhere, vary state to state. I hope CA is successful in passing this and other states follow suit.
iluvtennis
(20,705 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)fescuerescue
(4,465 posts)He can't win there if he's not on the ballet.
How cool...The yet unnamed Dem will win unopposed in 2020 and carry 100% of the vote.
briv1016
(1,570 posts)all the republicans would have to do is pass a federal law to the contrary and the supremacy clause would kick in.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Read article II Section I regarding the choosing of electors. It is a right that has been given to the states. You can't pass federal laws taking away rights given to the states.
briv1016
(1,570 posts)Even though they recently overturned most of it. Especially if they get to replace one more liberal justice.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)state legislatures designed to prevent them from violating citizens equal protection under the law don't constitute a restriction on their power. Neither the states or the federal government are allowed to be discriminatory in the exercise of their powers anyway.
briv1016
(1,570 posts)But when they have a flimsy excuse, "news" outlets to regurgitate it and a Supreme Court that will back them, truth and the Constitution don't mean much.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)He should do it. He can justify it by saying he asked the Senate for consent, they would not vote on the nom, sohe's issuing an Exec Order to get the job done.
Let them fume. I don't think they can impeach Garland if he's installed and if they try, on what grounds?
wordpix
(18,652 posts)IMO, you need to hone your argument, counselor, b/c you're losing the case.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)No candidate may receive the votes of California's electors who has not made financial disclosures to include publicizing their state and federal tax returns for the past 7 years.
That would be perfectly within Article II Section I.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)No candidate who has not made financial disclosures, which shall include public release of state and federal tax returns for the past 7 years, may receive the votes of California's electors.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Constitution.
Earlier the same day that the SCOTUS decision came out on Bush v Gore, the Florida state legislature voted to give the states electors to Bush citing Article II Section I as giving them the power. Once the SCOTUS ruled, they quickly buried this news and never spoke of it again, but there was some coverage:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/12/elec-d07.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/nov/30/uselections2000.usa2
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122367&page=1
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showflorida2000.php?fileid=fla_legislature12-06
As you see in the 2nd to last link, the only thing that would have potentially made this invalid is that since it was AFTER election day it could be considered Ex Post Facto.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,513 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)I live in a red town in a blue state that is turning red if we don't get our act together as Dems.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)I live in a red county in a blue state (D supermajority in the legislature, unpopular GOP termed out Governor and the seat's likely to flip in November if the Dems don't blow this one). I'll be contacting my GOP legislators about this one.
DallasNE
(7,543 posts)To pass a law in a State like Wisconsin to forbid a candidate from releasing their tax returns if they want their name to appear on the ballot.
Hamlette
(15,507 posts)efhmc
(14,935 posts)can we just make it the source of all federal governance?
temporary311
(957 posts)Or just the general?
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)MrModerate
(9,753 posts)Air Force One is allowed into California airspace?
Calista241
(5,595 posts)And this would be a disaster. Say Delta Airlines lobbies Georgia to prohibit other airlines from flying through "Georgian" airspace, and Illinois does the same with United Airlines. We'd have complete pandemonium.