Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "Trumps refusal to disclose his taxes prompts clever legislation in California" [View all]beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)25. every blue state should consider similar laws tied for all running in all primary and main elections
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....
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
101 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Trumps refusal to disclose his taxes prompts clever legislation in California" [View all]
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
OP
Yes, Cha! Hope more States will follow. We must never have a pres candidate w/o their taxes!
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
#2
I seriously doubt Trump will run for re-election if he manages to finish his first term.
maddiemom
Dec 2016
#13
Congress is full of money grubbing Trumpists so don't count on them to uphold the Constit.
wordpix
Dec 2016
#69
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
Nope, read Article II section I. Voters are voting to select electors and Article II Section I
stevenleser
Dec 2016
#60
Because that is what the election is for in each state. You are not voting for President
stevenleser
Dec 2016
#68
California is the only state that requires charities (501 C's) to file Schedule B's of their 990
underpants
Dec 2016
#52
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
"... 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
hell why not make a requirement that unless every single party candidate released full disclosure
beachbum bob
Dec 2016
#28
See Article II Section I of the Constitution regarding the choosing of electors. nt
stevenleser
Dec 2016
#65
Love it. When its put on the ballot here in Cali, I will be voting YES on it nt
iluvtennis
Dec 2016
#53
Nope, they can't. Similar to what i said to someone else above, restrictions on the
stevenleser
Dec 2016
#79
your argument that choosing electors equals CA requiring tax disclosure doesn't work
wordpix
Dec 2016
#78
Yep. What came out in the 2000 recount is that this is one of those ticking timebombs in the
stevenleser
Dec 2016
#86
has to happen in red states, NY and CA won't matter. It's winner take all, remember. n/t
Hamlette
Dec 2016
#90
Not sure! Makes sense to start from the primaries. We need transparency starting then.
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
#94
States don't have airspace. All US airspace is governed and controlled by the FAA.
Calista241
Dec 2016
#95