HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » California legislature pa...

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:22 AM

 

California legislature passes bill requiring presidential candidates to release tax returns



http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/350789-california-legislature-passes-bill-requiring-presidential-candidates-to

The California State Assembly on Thursday passed a bill that would require all presidential candidates to release their tax returns prior to being placed on the state’s ballot.

The bill, called the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act, passed the state assembly on a 42-18 vote and will now head to the state Senate for a concurrence vote before being sent to the Governor for his signature.

“President Trump’s blatant disregard for the tradition of releasing tax returns is dangerous to our democracy,” Senator Mike McGuire (D), one of the authors of the bill, said in a statement. “For decades, every President has put their personal beliefs aside and put our country first and released their returns."

“SB 149 helps to reestablish desperately needed transparency in the White House, and we are looking forward to seeing the Governor’s signature on the bill.”

61 replies, 3906 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply California legislature passes bill requiring presidential candidates to release tax returns (Original post)
Madam45for2923 Sep 2017 OP
Madam45for2923 Sep 2017 #1
Madam45for2923 Sep 2017 #3
malaise Sep 2017 #2
Madam45for2923 Sep 2017 #4
BigmanPigman Sep 2017 #44
calimary Sep 2017 #47
Wounded Bear Sep 2017 #5
California_Republic Sep 2017 #6
KPN Sep 2017 #7
True_Blue Sep 2017 #8
dalton99a Sep 2017 #9
fleur-de-lisa Sep 2017 #10
NobodyHere Sep 2017 #11
flibbitygiblets Sep 2017 #16
NobodyHere Sep 2017 #18
flibbitygiblets Sep 2017 #24
onetexan Sep 2017 #50
Daxter Sep 2017 #52
JI7 Sep 2017 #19
stopwastingmymoney Sep 2017 #45
Stonepounder Sep 2017 #21
NobodyHere Sep 2017 #23
Stonepounder Sep 2017 #29
NobodyHere Sep 2017 #33
NewJeffCT Sep 2017 #37
treestar Sep 2017 #56
Major Nikon Sep 2017 #28
NBachers Sep 2017 #36
left-of-center2012 Sep 2017 #54
MineralMan Sep 2017 #12
NYC Liberal Sep 2017 #13
MineralMan Sep 2017 #14
TomSlick Sep 2017 #42
Gore1FL Sep 2017 #48
NotASurfer Sep 2017 #15
JI7 Sep 2017 #17
azureblue Sep 2017 #20
Stonepounder Sep 2017 #22
flibbitygiblets Sep 2017 #26
BlueIdaho Sep 2017 #25
NewJeffCT Sep 2017 #38
better Sep 2017 #51
BlueIdaho Sep 2017 #57
lark Sep 2017 #27
vkkv Sep 2017 #30
lark Sep 2017 #32
vkkv Sep 2017 #31
lark Sep 2017 #34
vkkv Sep 2017 #35
stopwastingmymoney Sep 2017 #46
vkkv Sep 2017 #58
stopwastingmymoney Sep 2017 #60
vkkv Sep 2017 #61
blogslut Sep 2017 #39
Madam45for2923 Sep 2017 #40
R B Garr Sep 2017 #59
TomSlick Sep 2017 #41
Midwestern Democrat Sep 2017 #43
R B Garr Sep 2017 #49
bucolic_frolic Sep 2017 #53
Name removed Sep 2017 #55

Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:23 AM

1. The bill would require all presidential candidates to release the last five years of their tax retur

 

"The bill would require all presidential candidates to release the last five years of their tax returns in order to appear on the California ballot."

:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:23 AM

3. Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:23 AM

2. Off to the greatest page for thee

Other states should follow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:25 AM

4. Also read recently that California wants to move their primaries to February/March as opposed 2d end

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:10 PM

44. Yes! It is about time! I have been complaining about this for 30 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #44)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 01:19 AM

47. So have I.

You BET it's about time! Long PAST time, in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:27 AM

5. K & R...Sounds good to me!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:27 AM

6. California leads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:40 AM

7. Yay California!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:42 AM

8. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:46 AM

9. Kick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 10:57 AM

10. Kickety Kick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:08 AM

11. Can't say I'm a fan

 

As things stand right now Cali is a solid blue state. So in essence we're forcing the Democratic candidate to release his/her tax returns while giving the Republican candidate zero reason to follow suit.

If a battleground state or federal law made it mandatory then I'd be for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:52 AM

16. I think this could work in our favor though

Especially after Trump clearly lied, (that he would release them) and by now it's so obvious that he had so much corrupt shit to hide... any future candidate who tries to dodge the tax return issue will be cannon fodder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flibbitygiblets (Reply #16)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:56 AM

18. I'm not so sure

 

I think future candidates will note that Trump got elected despite not releasing tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #18)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:10 PM

24. He got elected based on blatant lies

(With Russian help, of course.) Americans hate being lied to (witness Trumps base freaking out over possible DACA reversal). Witness "Read my lips, no new taxes ". Witness "I did not have sex with that woman". Even "You can keep your doctor " (which wasn't actually a lie, just a promise that Obama had no control to keep).

Sure, we Americans can be very forgiving when there's a seemingly sincere apology, but we all know trump is incapable of admitting any sort of failure...so this is going to be remembered bitterly for a long time. IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 03:19 AM

50. Law wasn't in place and Don the Con said he would but didn't

Previous candidates respected & observed tradition. this con man has no regard for neither tradition of the rule of law. hoping other blue states will follow California's example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 06:24 AM

52. He got elected with "help"

From his former best friend Putin. Trump is the most corrupt, racist, and dishonest president in United States history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:56 AM

19. Republicans hold a primary in california also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 01:03 AM

45. My thought too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:01 PM

21. But if the (R) candidate refuses to follow suit,

his name won't appear on the ballot and the only votes he will get will be write-ins. Seem that is a bit of an incentive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stonepounder (Reply #21)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:10 PM

23. California is a solid blue state

 

Unless there's a chance of it flipping (which would be extremely disturbing on many levels) then it doesn't really matter if the R candidate appears on the ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #23)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 01:06 PM

29. Seems to me that going down that road

says that we only bother having elections in states that might go either way and ignore the states that are solid Blue or solid Red. I'm not at all sure that would be a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stonepounder (Reply #29)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 01:19 PM

33. Well there are local elections and this bill only applies to presidential candidates

 

There's also a reason why presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time and money in only a handful of states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #23)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 02:47 PM

37. if there is no Republican at the top of the ticket

for president, it will affect Republican turnout in local elections, as well as US house and US Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 09:18 AM

56. That doesn't mean they would want to officially

give it up entirely. Not with that many votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:35 PM

28. They would still have plenty of reasons

Imagine the symbolic implication of a Republican candidate being unqualified for the ballot in the most populous state. If there was zero reason for them to be on the ballot, they wouldn't go through the trouble of getting it there in the first place. If nothing else it virtually insures they will lose the popular vote, which while irrelevant to the outcome still represents how much of a mandate a candidate has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 02:45 PM

36. There are other states who are considering this. With California's impetus, they may follow through.

Even if they are all blue states, republican scamdidates will not be able to bypass them all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NobodyHere (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 08:26 AM

54. "giving the Republican candidate zero reason to follow suit"

Then they'd not appear on the GOP ballot, and not get the California delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:13 AM

12. I like it, but it won't survive a SCOTUS review.

The qualifications for President are limited to the Constitutional description. A law that adds requirements for ballot placement will not get past the SCOTUS. I guarantee it. Not a chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #12)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:26 AM

13. It it entirely up to the states how they allocate their electoral votes.

Article II, Section 1:

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


There is no requirement that states even hold a popular vote, for example. Early on, many states had the legislature choose their electors.

And every state has many requirements for appearing on the ballot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access

Thus it is entirely constitutional for a state to say that its electors may only be awarded to a candidate who has released their tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #13)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:30 AM

14. That's not the question, really.

The question is whether a state can demand things of a presidential candidate to determine whether he/she is on the ballot or not. I'm saying that I think the SCOTUS would say no. That's not my preference, but my assessment of what the SCOTUS would do. I believe the California law would be deemed to be unconstitutional.

Please do not conflate my assessment of SCOTUS action with my opinion about the law. I'm not on the SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #14)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 07:55 PM

42. Agreed

See my post 41.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 01:42 AM

48. The issue isn't qualification for office. It's qualification to be on the ballot.

There are many things required by states to get on the ballot that are totally unrelated to being 35, a natural born citizen and a resident within the U.S. for 14 years.

Examples include (but are not limited to):
* getting signatures of eligible voters,
* meeting date deadlines, and
* paying qualifying fees.

Unless SCOTUS is going to throw out these and other state ballot requirements, I don't see how they throw out the new CA rule.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:33 AM

15. Now can we add "IQ test" and "psychological evaluation" to that list?

As long as Cali is headed down that path. Just saying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NotASurfer (Reply #15)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:55 AM

17. Down what path ? I don't see how 2 are comparable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NotASurfer (Reply #15)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:00 PM

20. you just sayin what?

Like you don't see the difference between financial transparency (to make sure the candidate can't be manipulated by people he or she owes money to) and an IQ test?
Get real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azureblue (Reply #20)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:03 PM

22. Better yet, require that a candidate for President be able to pass the standard Citizenship test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azureblue (Reply #20)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:22 PM

26. I think the point was that trump is stupid and crazy

And we'd like our POTUS to NOT be those things (i.e., we thought intelligence and sanity were a given, before now. )

I took the suggestion as an addition, not am equivalency. And I thought your response was harsh and unkind.

Edit, meant to respond to Azureblue's post. Apologies!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:21 PM

25. Great News! Now add

Just a couple more big blue states and the law essentially becomes national. The electoral college votes from a few big states will mean no one can win office without handing over their taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIdaho (Reply #25)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 02:51 PM

38. Clinton won all the "big" blue states

California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey.

Unless it passes in a swing state like Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania or Florida, it won't matter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 04:42 AM

51. I'm not so sure...

1237 out of 2472 delegates were required to clench the Republican nomination.
California had 172, accounting by itself for 7% of available delegates.
Add in NY's 89, and we're already over 10%.

That could become a serious obstacle pretty quick, and if you can't get nominated...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to better (Reply #51)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 09:58 AM

57. Yup

You might not even cross the first hurdle, let alone make it on the ballot that counts...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 12:27 PM

27. This will go to the SCOTUS very quickly and they will overturn it.

Russia is already getting some payback from their selection of orange assface, now they are in the process of fucking over our judicial system. They want Drumpf and his cronies in office, regardless of if they are found guilty of criminal election interference or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #27)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 01:14 PM

30. I don't think so. State's run their own elections. That's why we have so many problems

 

in Red States with voter suppression, etc...

A law to make Fed Tax returns public is not within Fed. jurisdiction.

Income taxes came around long after the U.S. Constitution was written.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #30)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 01:17 PM

32. With this illegal SCOTUS

I don't know that anything's safe. Did you see how they approved Texas' totally gerrymandered voting map to be reinstated? Kennedy will always vote with the R's on voting issues and for big business, where he deviates is in personal civil rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 01:15 PM

31. Finally some good news. But, I'll be much happier when we (Calif.), OR and WA

 

leave the U.S. to from our own nation.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #31)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 01:19 PM

34. I will be moving there the day they do.

A good friend in Sonora has some property and had said we could either buy some of his land if we wanted or just build a house or move a trailer there. There's no way I'll stay here in redneck No. FL. if that happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #34)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 02:27 PM

35. Sonora is nice. The Hwy 108 corridor is very pretty all the way up to the Sonora Pass.

 


But it is more crowded than you might think, but that can mean more jobs avail, too.
There are some ski resorts and other towns further up the mountain.. Columbia, Twain Harte, Mi-Wuk, Soulsbyville,

Still nice though, somewhat like where we now live in Mariposa. About 1&1/2 hrs south-east, on a different route into Yosemite.

Just do it. Go for it!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #35)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 01:08 AM

46. My grandparents lived in Mariposa when I was growing up

I spent a lot of happy time there with them and my cousins.

Do they still have the fair on labor day weekend? We never missed that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopwastingmymoney (Reply #46)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 02:05 PM

58. Yes, the county fair is over Labor Day weekend.. We moved here in Nov. 2013. We've been to

 

to the fair twice in four summers.. There are free summer weekend concerts at the Art Park in town which we go to once in a while.
I like that we're relatively close to the high country in Yosemite and the eastern Sierra for summer camping and hiking.

When housing prices were coming back, we sold our small house on the coast (that was worth way more than we cared to live there) to get away from the growing crowds and fog to be a bit more 'off the grid'.

Do you remember what area they lived in? The road's name?
Cousins still live in the area?

We're on Fox Creek Rd. (Tip Top / Triangle Rd area) The Middle Fork of the Chowchilla River runs through the prop.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #58)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 02:57 PM

60. I think they were near you

It was west fall road then and up past Triangle. My real estate agent sister keeps tabs on the house and says the road name has been changed to old mill road. She wants to buy that house again someday. They built it themselves in the late 60's and it was the gathering spot for their kids and grandkids who are scattered around California then and now.

We used to go to dinner at a place in Bootjack that I think was called 'The White House' and my grandparents were members of a squaredancing club called the Bootjack Stompers!

You've taken me down memory lane today! I'm still close with my cousins and we all have fond memories of Mariposa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopwastingmymoney (Reply #60)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 03:30 PM

61. Yah, that is close! Perhaps 1 & 1/2 mile as a crow flies.

 


East Westfall is the road that heads east off Triangle as Triangle bends west, then Old Mill is shortly up on the left. E. Westfall then continues east to meet Chowchilla Mt Rd. and into the Poderosa Basin subdivision.

Ah hell, it's after 12, I gotta get off this computer and outside!

Thanks for your interest.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 03:06 PM

39. Does the refusal to release tax returns keep the candidate off the primary ballot?

If so I think that would be very beneficial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blogslut (Reply #39)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 04:51 PM

40. Am wondering about that too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blogslut (Reply #39)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 02:14 PM

59. Great solution there. That and excluding them from debates if they

don't produce tax returns. That might circumvent some of the legal system if release of taxes is made a requirement for ballot and debate participation.

It's absurd that two of the most recent vocal politicians ridiculing other candidates did not release their tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 07:54 PM

41. I think MineralMan (Post 12 and string) is correct.

I can't see SCOTUS allowing states to impose requirements to running for President other than those stated in the Constitution - natural born citizen, at least 35 and US resident for at least 14 years. I can hear the slippery slope questions from oral argument now with all manner of bizarre possibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomSlick (Reply #41)

Fri Sep 15, 2017, 08:39 PM

43. I agree. The Supreme Court ruled back in the early 1990s that states could not unilaterally impose

term limits on their own federal offices - I think SCOTUS will shoot this down pretty quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 01:51 AM

49. Yes! If you refuse to show tax returns, then no debates.

No reason to give someone a platform to attack others when they can't be transparent themselves. No foreign money. Taxes should absolutely be a requirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sat Sep 16, 2017, 08:23 AM

53. There are hurdles to run for President

States have all sorts of restrictions, paperwork, deadlines, legal requirements.

This is but another hurdle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Reply to this thread