Sharpe
4459
I don’t agree with the characterization of this California requirement as “arbitrary”. I think given what we’ve seen about politicians’ reluctance to disclose tax returns and the very relevant information that tax returns often reveal (I’m thinking of Mitt Romney as an example), I actually think tax return disclosure should be routine and mandatory. It’s only the fact that politicians are very reluctant to police themselves that this hasn’t been made mandatory before now IMO. I mean, political contributions require mandatory disclosure. Political expenditures require mandatory disclosure. And the topic of politicians doing business with, receiving money from, being financially involved with, various business entities, is extremely relevant, as Trump has illustrated.
So I see this as something every state should do.
Honest question; what germane information have we gleamed from Presidential tax returns in the past?
In the past, the news has told me how rich someone was, how much they wrote off for charity, and little bits about their businesses. While I wanted to know all these things about Trump so I could more easily and authoritatively call out his lies, I’m not sure if this actually would have been meaningful in any way in the election.
Most candidates - even mega wealthy ones like Kerry (Heinz fortune) don’t have anything to hide and we want their returns to be ‘boring.’
However, Romney vulture venture capitialist amassed a fortune and appeared to want to hide something by limiting his release to one year (even if it was just to avoid illustrating that the super wealthy don’t always play by the same rules as the little people) and known grifter and Russian stooge Donnie takes it to another level.
In the future do we really want candidates running who might have egregious conflicts of interest or who could be beholden to foreign entities? SCOTUS already all-but legalized bribery, inviting even more corrupt politicians seems a bad idea IMO.
[And yes, I know, Jerry Brown didn’t release his returns either but again everyone regardless of party should be required to.]
In the past they’ve told us stuff like whether the VP had continuing financial ties to Haliburton, or whether or not the future POTUS had divested his shares in defense contractors.
Most importantly, they tell us whether or not the candidate has foreign investments/debts that might compromise their position as the representative of American interests. I mean, can you imagine how shitty it would be if a US President made decisions based on whether or not they owned a hotel in a country or not?
If I had to bet, I’d bet the Supreme Court would stop them. Of course, that’s a guess, pure speculation, but so is the idea that the Court wouldn’t stop them.
I think it it is arbitrary, if for no other reason than that it will make no difference to the outcome in California. If a party has enough power and public support in a state to strike a candidate who doesn’t release his tax returns, the candidate will lose that state anyway. Viewed that way, it’s just a stunt, and using the federal election ballot for stunts is a bad idea.
dtolman
4465
An important distinction here is that the California bill in no way prevents ANYONE from running for President. Donald Trump can still run for President on a California ballot.
What it does do is prevent him from participating in a Primary Election to participate as the Republican Candidate for President in California. That’s a huge distinction when compared to other laws mentioned in this thread.
Really? The idea that the state can decide who can be on the ballot for a primary election is just plain weird.
I totally get the concern, but I just don’t get how the tax return helps avoid the issue unless someone was being particularly stupid (which I guess is possible for Trump) in how they conducted such business and subsequently filed. Of course, I’m not a wealthy guy; most of my life, I’ve qualified for the simplified return so I’m sure some of this comes from pure ignorance. But still, sharing the tax return is sharing something already disclosed to the government; it just makes it a public spectacle, and requires something the public would latch onto and care about for it to make a dent. Romney’s business ventures seemed to be well-known beforehand, and those who cared didn’t seem like they were going to vote for him anyway. I don’t know, maybe I’m just too darn jaded after 2016.
C’mon, we all know the Emoluments Clause is really more of a suggestion than anything else, right? /s
dtolman
4468
No more weird than open primaries - which is state mandated.
Maybe. I’m not really a fan of open primaries, but the way to view them is that they expand freedom by giving everyone a voice. Striking candidates from a ballot isn’t an expansion of freedom, is it? Sure we might like the resulting outcomes better, but it is a narrowing of choices, not an expansion of them.
… I mean, they can literally do that now if they have the votes. Like I said, there’s no Federal law telling states how to pick electors.* (And indeed for the first 170-ish years of the Republic, primaries were not a thing and which presidential candidates appeared on the general election ballots in any given state was not determined by public elections.)
You don’t think voters have a legit interest in knowing where the candidates get their money? Even if Trump were to keel over tomorrow, this would still be a useful ballot requirement in the future. (You seem to be under the impression that this law only applies to Trump and only for the 2020 election, which is not the case.)
Who do you think pays for the ballots and running the election itself? It’s not the parties.
Every state has a number of requirements that must be met for a candidate to appear on a ballot. It’s not a new thing. In California, for example, to apply to be a candidate, you need a certain number of signatures on a petition, and pay a fee (or apply to have the fee waived.) In addition, since 1974 you must file a statement of economic interest to disclose potential financial conflicts of interest. Asking for tax returns is just an extension of that idea.
*Edit: other than the day the electors are chosen.
Alstein
4471
California Republicans could also get around this by going to a caucus- or just declaring Trump the winner without a primary, which was being floated in some states if a primary challenger to Trump got momentum.
Sure, but they can exercise that legitimate interest by voting. And, again, in this case, Trump can’t win in California, and the law was passed as a stunt.
I’m perfectly aware of that, thanks, but it doesn’t mean the state can actually choose the primary candidates, does it?
Beto on Pod Save America, post-shootings. Interview starts at 52:10.
https://crooked.com/podcast/8chan-in-the-white-house/
Admittedly it’s hard when you have 9 other people on stage with you, but this is the guy who needs to show up to debates if he wants to have a chance.
We weren’t talking about choosing candidates (which in the primary process is ultimately done by the parties.) We were talking about who gets to appear on the state primary ballot. This is determined by the state, which runs the primary election.
As Alstein says, if a party in a state doesn’t like this, they’re perfectly free to use some other method to select delegates, like a caucus. In 2016 Kentucky had a caucus for the GOP and a primary for Dems.
This is a kind of double-speak, and I can’t really take it seriously. The entity that decides who is on the ballot is the entity deciding who the candidates are. That’s not really debatable, is it?
That, of course. But if he’s willing to shoot this straight all the time, the media will follow him around with a camera and broadcast everything he says and then the debates don’t mean nearly as much to his chances.
(this is what Trump 2015/2016 taught us)
dtolman
4477
Its not doublespeak at all. The California Republican Party is free to appoint whomever they want to run on that line in the November ballot, by whatever method. Even without this regulation, its possible none of the primary candidates may appear on the November General Election ballot - the convention (and the California Republican Party) does not have to choose from those listed primary candidates.
But if they want to have a state funded primary election, then any candidates on that primary ballot must meet certain criteria - now including releasing their tax filings.
Sure, but that’s a statement along the lines of the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Some methods of electing candidates are more effective than others. Having people on the ballot is far superior to e.g. writing in a candidate’s name, so pointing out that people are free to write in a name is touting an empty and ineffective freedom. Having candidates on the ballot matters; it is essential to the proper function of democracy.
Yes, I understand that. But we can surely agree that a state might choose some criteria that is perhaps not quite so pleasing to you? How about a wealth requirement?
