General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBefore I forget, no candidate with a D can run without releasing 8 years tax returns.
Anywhere in the country, anyone who wants to run in OUR party, must comply.
That is my new rule.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AlexSFCA
(6,273 posts)are we trying to make it harder for ourselves? giving opponents valuable info to fuel rw propaganda. It should rather be state level law that anyone who runs for any office in the state must release tax returns; electorate is the employer not the state.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)Actual tax returns have a way of cutting through the rhetoric of politi-speak. Nothing to hide? Show us.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)
AZ8theist
(6,547 posts)If you want change, INSIST BOTH PARTIES ADOPT TRANSPARENCY.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)no say in how they conduct their primaries. As a lifelong Democrat, I want us to hold ourselves to a higher standard. If you've got nothing to hide....show us! 
AZ8theist
(6,547 posts)Unless the Repukes do the same. it is a wasted effort.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)worry about what foreign entanglements, or shady business dealings that might pop up if they make it through to the GE. If their tax returns take them out in the primaries, then we don't have to worry about being stuck with a candidate who might really have something to hide, only find out as an October surprise in a general election. Not showing your returns is a disqualifier for me, and it sounds like a couple of state parties have made it a requirement for ballot access.
still_one
(96,798 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(33,776 posts)Candidates in the primary.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)We're better than them and we need to show that. I want at least 8 years
realmirage
(2,117 posts)You don't think republicans would distort the details of our candidate's returns and use it against us? Then what do we say? Yeah well they didn't even show theirs! And how did that work out for us last time?
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Hillary showed 30 years and lost but it still showed that she had the most integrity of all the candidates.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)Read it again. republicans don’t care that his returns are clean. They’ll distort it and run it on a loop while not releasing shit on their side. We have to fight smart or get ready to lose again.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)a ticking time bomb.
Look at Trump.
Who do you think that we are "missing out on" who would refuse basic vetting?
pnwmom
(109,629 posts)of the other side.
The Democratic party, not the state, is what determines who runs as a Democrat. All the state Democratic parties should make something like this a rule.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)That is most assuredly an added bonus! The biggest benefit, however, it to help make certain that we Democrats do not have to deal with a candidate who has all sorts of financial skeletons in their closet... that are revealed only AFTER the convention.
The candidates who have financial skeletons are the ones who are stand to lose the most, are are logically the ones who will complain the loudest about any such requirement.
Cha
(305,812 posts)their complete set of tax returns for years. No exceptions
mcar
(43,619 posts)
Autumn
(46,642 posts)Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)We have the power to relentlessly dog a candidate who won't.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)
FakeNoose
(35,978 posts)Could be one possibility.
Autumn
(46,642 posts)You can dog whoever you want, all that's happening is you are wearing yourself out. We Dems dogged Trump for his and the pukes said no... so we got no Trumpy tax returns. It's like making a rule that you can drink a full bottle of tequila chased down by a bottle of scotch and not get a hangover. Good luck with both of those non enforceable rules.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)That is how the rule, like any social rule, is enforced.
Autumn
(46,642 posts)do so after they win the nomination, I would think not voting for that person is a tough choice you will have to make if you are standing by that rule. It's like living in a red state and your Democratic senator decides to vote yes on BK for the supreme court and you have decided that you won't vote for someone who votes to install BK, an unfit human being when you and millions of others know he was nominated because he's willing to vote to cover up crimes for an asshole like Trump and anything else the RW loons decide push for, like ending woman's right to a safe legal abortion and rolling back Gay rights and they can shape the court for decades? Meanwhile a sleazy republican like Donny Trump Jr, has won the Republican nomination and is running against your Senator. What are you gonna do? Vote for that senator anyway or let a republican have his seat in the next election because you have this rule that you are sticking to your principals? I'm going to go on and vote for the guy who won my party's nomination even if I don't like him because he voted yes on BK and he didn't release his 8 years of taxes because I know he's not a fucking Trump. Make it a law that both sides must release 8 years of taxes upon winning their party's nomination, not a rule that as we well know one side won't bother to enforce. My two cents.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)First off nobody said anything about “making a law”. The OP says it is “my new rule”.
It is mine as well.
Likewise it is a rule that I will not vote for a candidate who opposes reproductive choice. That is one of many criteria for “who gets my vote”.
To say “oh, but you don’t apply that to the other side” is pretty damned silly. That’s what MAKES them “the other side”.
Autumn
(46,642 posts)both parties have to abide by. I don't make fucking stupid rules that don't apply evenly. YMOFV Whatever. Good luck with your "rule" 
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)Do you think that it is unreasonable to have to show your tax return to run as a Democrat? Why would you make a snarky comment rather than address the part of the statement that you do not agree with?
I am genuinely curious.
There are people on DU who decry the lack of ability to have discussion about people and policies with which we disagree. I have said that when people become emotionally engaged, that dialogue or even debate is often hindered by it. I do think however, that especially a board, where responses are not instantaneous, that you have a few minutes to sit with an answer and think about it.
I often find myself writing responses and part of the way through I realize that I don't care enough, know enough, or am too upset by the subject to continue responding, so I just click away.
Again, just asking why that particular response?
Autumn
(46,642 posts)always insist Democrats do it. Then when Democrats insist that the Republicans do it we get told by them to fuck off. Why impose restriction on only our side? Not a well thought out rule when you know damn good and well the other side breaks every rule they can. Why put our party at a disadvantage?
As for snark, I'm just a snarky person in non serious dramatic, yet funny proclamations. Make an OP saying I can't rag on the First Nude or FLOTITS and see just how snarky I can be.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)We want our candidates to show their taxes to make sure that there aren't any major problems that will expose them to criticism during the primary or general. We already know Republicans will have problems with their finances.
I agree that it would be better if it were a law. But laws are the floor. They are the basic, "can't do" to avoid getting in trouble. Ethical standards and principles that we follow despite them not being laws, is what we want our candidates to do.
Look at Stacey Abrams. I know that she just lost, but she ran a heck of a campaign in racist Georgia against a corrupt bastard who was overseeing the election and was her opponent. She had financial difficulties that showed up in her taxes, but that did not end up being a problem for her in the race at all. She was able to use the information as a way to relate to everyday people. I have fallen behind on my taxes and have worked out a plan to pay. It happens. If I ever planned to run, I would make sure that I was transparent about my situation.
What you won't see on my taxes is anything shady, any payouts to Russian oligarchs or any purchases of land a highly inflated prices (laundering).
We don't want candidates like the last example. Hillary Clinton released more than a decades worth of taxes from both her personal and the Clinton Foundation. That is not what beat her. 30 years of false stories, and cheating from Republicans did it.
If releasing your taxes is a disadvantage, then perhaps the candidate is not ready to run for office.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)I mean when I say it on FB or whatever, sure.
But...
Anyway, thanks.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)I see nothing wrong when holding our candidates to the highest standards. That way, if they get past our scrutiny, then the Republicans can hurl all of the false crap at them that they would anyway, but there are no nasty surprises about oops, that illegal shell company sitting in Montego Bay that cut taxes by 10 million dollars.
xmas74
(29,786 posts)They could prepare a legally sound petition, garner supporters to work fairs and other large groups to gather valid petitions, present the to the state's SoS and possibly have them on the ballot for a vote by the people. This has actually been mentioned as one of many initiatives for the 2020 ballot in Missouri, except it would be further back and would apply to all running for office with exceptions only pertaining to age.
Or the OP could become a voting member of their state's Dem party and present this as part of a state platform, garnering support.
Autumn
(46,642 posts)But to apply it for Democrats only would be detrimental to our side. It should have been made a law for any high office candidate years ago to release their tax returns upon winning any nomination. But who could have ever expected something like Trump to happen.
dsc
(52,685 posts)We have the governing trifecta in about a dozen states any one of those or all of them could make it a precondition of being on the ballot to release x number of years of tax returns. While only Colorado and Nevada are likely to be in play all of them are necessities for the Democratic candidate to have any shot of winning.
Autumn
(46,642 posts)Jersey Devil
(10,353 posts)In my opinion if you force somebody running for local town council to show the entire town 8 years of their tax returns you probably are going to have some offices with no candidates filing for the elections. For lower offices there are disclosure laws that require the names of all employers or sources of income, which is fine. But asking everyone, for every office, to give their tax returns is a bit much.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Jersey Devil
(10,353 posts)Governor, statewide offices, I agree should show returns. But anything lower than that it simply becomes more of an invasion of privacy. You can ask for sources of income and investments to prevent conflicts without asking someone exactly how much their income is.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)Jersey Devil
(10,353 posts)I had to disclose the names of any sources of income that I had. I was fine with that. But if I had to show my tax returns to run for an office that paid nothing I never would have run.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)
Autumn
(46,642 posts)Small-Axe
(359 posts)I'd add a second. No one runs for president as a D without 5 years of continuous party membership.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)
sheshe2
(88,073 posts)realmirage
(2,117 posts)a lot of posts about him. That tells me he has a very good chance.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)Cha
(305,812 posts)he's mentioned when there's a request for politicians to show years of Tax Returns..
You know.. like Hillary did 
.. and trump didn't.
Small-Axe
(359 posts)Some of us fear what will happen when he loses again.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)Remember that Putin did his best to help sanders last time Russia was helping sanders for a reason https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/
A 37-page indictment resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation shows that Russian nationals and businesses also worked to boost the campaigns of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Green party nominee Jill Stein in an effort to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton.
The Russians “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” according to the indictment, which was issued Friday.
sanders success to some degree was due to Russia
sanders will not be the nominee of the party in 2020. There are a large number of democrats who have long memories and will not forgive or forget the role that sanders and russia played in election trump
Small-Axe
(359 posts)I'm one of those Democrats with a long memory.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)realmirage
(2,117 posts)Lulz the irony
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)Putin and Russia flooded sites like JPR and other sanders sites with fake news to hurt Clinton https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-fake-news-russia_us_58c34d97e4b0ed71826cdb36
The stories they posted weren’t the normal complaints he was used to seeing as the Vermont senator and the former secretary of state fought out the Democratic presidential primary. These stories alleged that Clinton had murdered her political opponents and used body doubles.
Mattes, 66, had been a television reporter and Senate investigator in previous lives. He put his expertise in unmasking fraudsters to work. At first, he suspected that the sites were created by the old Clinton haters from the ‘90s ― what Hillary Clinton had dubbed “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”
But when Mattes started tracking down the sites’ domain registrations, the trail led to Macedonia and Albania. In mid-September, he emailed a few of his private investigator friends with a list of the sites. “Very creepy and i do not think Koch brothers,” he wrote.
At one point, JPR had a half dozen threads on the greatest page of that website pushing the pizzagate story. After being laughed at on DU, the JPR site eventually ban pizzagate stories which were replaced by numerous other stories from Russia including some claiming that Clinton was dying
See also Russia Duped Bernie Fans via Facebook, San Diego Dems Toldhttps://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2017/03/23/russia-duped-bernie-fans-via-facebook-san-diego-dems-told/
John Mattes speaks to San Diego Democrats for Equality, the the predominantly gay club in Hillcrest. Photo by Ken Stone
But investigative journalist John Mattes, describing how fake stories on Facebook helped defeat Hillary Clinton, isn’t sure who Mitov is.
“He may be a bot. He may be a person [or four]. He may be living in Macedonia, laughing,” Mattes told a rapt audience of 90 Thursday night in Hillcrest.
But Mitov’s thousands of posts — and similar ones from Albania and elsewhere — duped just enough of the 13 million Sanders supporters to hand the election to Donald Trump and prove Russia could hack American democracy, said the 66-year-old resident of Pacific Beach.
A major Sanders organizer in Southern California himself, Mattes admitted that “we were played.”
Again, Mueller has documented the support that Russia gave to Sanders. I trust Mueller on this.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts)
lapucelle
(19,554 posts)lapucelle
(19,554 posts)It is cute, though.
George II
(67,782 posts)Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Gothmog
(155,389 posts)sanders was used by Russia much the same way that Rove used nader. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.....
On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift,” and reported that the Nader campaign “has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party,” according to “an analysis of federal records.” Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan’s other friends. Mr. Egan’s wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was “Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.” Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under “Swift Boat Veterans for Nader,” that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that “the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader’s signatures in their state” (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state’s 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush’s big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, “A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm.”
It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush’s real opponent - votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That’s why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.
If sanders wants to win back some respect, he needs to admit that was used by Russia
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Gothmog
(155,389 posts)Texas moved closer to turning blue. There are no gop judges left in Harris county and a new Democratic district attorney and county judge in my county
Texas will turn blue. This will be done by hard work
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Keep up the hard work.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)We made a significant amount of progress this cycle.
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
lapucelle
(19,554 posts)Cha
(305,812 posts)Response to Small-Axe (Reply #35)
Post removed
Small-Axe
(359 posts)But you already know that don’t you?
I don't wish to re-fight 2016. I do not want Bernie Sanders as our nominee.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)sanders will not be able to get onto the ballot in several blue states without releasing either five or ten years of tax returns under ballot access laws.
If sanders runs, there will be some fun ads about sanders work to help elect trump and sanders stunts at the National Convention. Who do you think is more popular with Southern voters-John Lewis or sanders? sanders was effectively eliminated after super Tuesday last cycle and I suspect that sanders will not fare well in the south
Wintryjade
(814 posts)Response to Gothmog (Reply #44)
Post removed
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)A couple deep blue states are adopting ballot access laws requiring the disclosure of tax returns in order to get on the ballot. These ballot access laws are constitutional and serve an important function.
I also want to see sanders tax returns. There are questions about who was paid commissions on the TV ads ran by sanders. I personally doubt that sanders will run in 2020. If sanders runs, then he will have to provide his tax returns in order to get onto the ballot in some blue states
treestar
(82,383 posts)I doubt a reputable statistician would think of that as enough data.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)irrelevant and not at all related to the real world doesn’t really help anything.
treestar
(82,383 posts)posts here, no matter how numerous, cannot support any increase in Bernie's chances.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)Too many real democrats have long memories
former9thward
(33,424 posts)So you can enforce your rule.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)I dont have a single friend who doesnt, all my friends are liberals.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)And he is a liberal. And he does far more than anyone on internet discussion boards. He opposes such a rule and vetoed a bill mandated the rule in CA.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)Do you support Jerry Brown's position? Yes or no?
melman
(7,681 posts)How utterly unsurprising.
mcar
(43,619 posts)you may otherwise admire, don't you?
Also, I kind of don't think Eliot is friends with Jerry Brown. Just sayin'.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Either personally or politically.
mcar
(43,619 posts) Hortensis
(58,785 posts)candidates to disclose their tax returns. There are other transparency provisions, including campaign donors and special interest influence.
As you say, it's a liberal thing.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)in the 116th congress.
Our people in the House have been putting together a "democracy reform" task force and legislative package of many bills. It'll be a very big job. They've been planning and talking with groups working for legislative reform, like the End Citizens United group, for months. Actually years, and we were doing this in 2016, but just 2 years of Repub control have highlighted more things that need to be addressed to block what their institutionalization of corruption has developed into.
Short form: Campaign finance, voting, ethics, rules overhauls sections with various bills under each. Everything we want and need.
Some things probably can be done before 2020 with bipartisan agreement, most after we get the power to end the corruption the Republicans will fight tooth and nail to protect -- while they still control the senate. Ending Citizens United and similar laws to get money out of campaigns will require constitutional amendment, but that's in there too. Itm, we'll get taxpayer campaign finance up and running and require dark money donors be identified and other transparency.
This article is from early September, before the midterms, and there are a number written since, including one I saw with long lists of goals, but it's in Roll Call so more intelligent than some. 
If all goes as intended, Congressman Sarbanes will head up the task force, but no one's been waiting for that. The package is apparently pretty much ready to introduce in January.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/government-overhaul-package-crucial-economic-agenda-hoyer-says
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)Before the filing deadlines, I expect that there will be six or seven blue states that will require the filing of five or ten years of tax returns in order to get onto the ballot.
I seriously doubt that sanders will run in 2020 due to these laws.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Jerry Brown vetoed a similar law in CA because he said it was unconstitutional. And they are. Rules can't be added to the Constitution. They will be struck down by courts as soon as someone affected files a suit.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)Prof. Tribe disagrees with your analysis https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/opinions/state-laws-requiring-tax-return-disclosure-legal-tribe-painter-eisen/index.html
A line must of course be drawn between permissible ballot access laws and impermissible attempts to add qualifications to those specified in the federal Constitution. But our research and analysis lead us to conclude that tax return disclosure laws such as the one proposed in California resemble ballot access laws in structure, impact, and purpose much more closely than they resemble laws imposing additional qualifications for presidential office.
As a result, we believe these laws comport fully with the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike prohibited qualifications, these laws do not impose substantive requirements on candidates beyond those imposed by the Constitution itself; that is, these laws do not limit which candidates may run for office based on any particular information in their tax return. Thus, they do not create an insurmountable barrier in advance to any set of individuals otherwise qualified under Article II of our Constitution. Instead, these laws require federally qualified candidates to comply with a relatively minor process of tax disclosure. That is something competing candidates can and should readily do in order to allow voters to make more informed judgments about those contenders' characters or backgrounds.
Maryland has such a ballot access law in place now. New Jersey and Mass are soon to follow. California will probably adopt such a law after Brown is no longer in office.
I trust Prof. Tribe on this.
As a practical matter, trump may not be challenging these laws because if the Democrats retake the House, they will be getting his ta returns as one of the first items of business. House Democrats have done three or four votes to put GOP members on record as not wanting to get trump's tax returns and this may still be an issue in the midterms. This could mean that sanders would be the only candidate suing to invalidate these laws. That will not be a great position to take with Democratic voters
former9thward
(33,424 posts)I have seen arguments on the other side and I think they will prevail.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)Are you a member of the bar? Again, I trust Tribe far more on these types of issues. I have read some other legal analysis of these laws and I think that these laws are constitutional
I suspect that California will be adopting a new ballot access law once Brown is out of office. New Jersey and Mass will also be adopting such laws. It is difficult seeing any Democrat winning the nomination without running in these states
It may well be that trump will not challenge these laws since his tax returns will have been disclosed by the House long before the filing deadlines. That means that sanders may be the only candidate challenging that law which would not help sanders with many real Democrats.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)That fact means nothing however since I am an anonymous internet poster like everyone here. Even if I was not anonymous it would just be the views of one person. We will see soon enough what the court's say.
Small-Axe
(359 posts)I'd enjoy seeing Bernie Sanders file a lawsuit that claims he need not release his tax returns. LOL.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)A party may pass a rule but there has been no attempt to do so by the Democratic National Committee.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)to keep their finances secret. 
former9thward
(33,424 posts)If you run for President you don't lose your Constitutional right to privacy. That is why Jerry Brown vetoed the CA law. He said that once that barrier is broken then there would be no limits to what candidates would be required to disclose. I agree with him.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)I strongly disagree with your analysis. Luckily Governor Brown will be out of office soon and I suspect that California will join several other blue states with new versions of these laws
former9thward
(33,424 posts)No one gives up Constitutional rights to run for any office.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)No one is forcing anyone to run for office and one of the requirements for running is agreeing to comply with the requirements including filing with the FEC and applicable state regulatory agencies. If you want to run for office, one has to make a ton of disclosures including financial disclosure. All candidates prior to trump and sanders had no issues releasing tax returns.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)They say that since, in most cases, having sex is a personal choice so the state should be free to impose restrictions on the consequences. I reject that argument. Tax returns being released is fairly recent in our history. Most candidates for President never released them including wealthy ones like Roosevelt and JFK. No one got excited when Jerry Brown refused to do so.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)Again, your claims about these laws being unconstitutional are wrong and you have provide no backing for your claims. That analogy was so bad that it made me laugh. Thank you.
I support the ballot access laws even though it is very likely trump's returns will be released without this laws. House Democrats will get trump's tax returns early next year and so trump may have no motivation to fight these laws. There is a decent chance that the only candidate who may be affected by these law will be sanders. I am amused that sanders supporters are comfortable with sanders not disclosing his tax returns. I think that we need to see sanders tax returns if he runs
BTW, in Vermont all candidates have to disclose their tax returns other than candidates running for federal office. https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2018/WorkGroups/Senate%20Government%20Operations/Ethics%20Commission/ETHICS%20COMMISSION~Madeline%20Motta~Financial%20Disclosure%20-%20Candidates~1-19-2018.pdf and https://www.pressherald.com/2018/09/20/releasing-tax-returns-an-issue-again-in-governors-races/
Why should statewide candidates have to disclose their returns but not federal candidates in Vermont? I think that all candidates should release tax returns if they want to run
A candidate should not run for office without complying with all disclosure requirements including release of tax returns.
I agree with both Proferssors Tribe and Hasen on this issue.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Kind of defeats the purpose...
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)That will be fairly effective remedy and should be added to more states laws.
I note that most of the candidates who refused to provide tas retruns lost.
In 2020, several key blue states will have ballot access laws. sanders cannot count on trump suing to invalidate these laws in that trump's tax returns will have been released by the House long before the filing deadlines. It will be a very large negative if a Democratic candidate sued to invalide one of these laws.
George II
(67,782 posts)The Federal government requires that Federal office holders, employees, and candidates file financial disclosures every year. There isn't a concern about privacy.
https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/disclosure
Refusal by a candidate to release tax returns only makes one wonder if he/she has something to hide.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)Someone is worried about these laws
I do not expect sanders to run in 2020. If sanders does run. I want to see all of his tax returns
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Now you're using the same argument racist Republicans use when they say that Democrats started the KKK, so that means we are the "party of the KKK" and not them.... because what was going on decades and decades ago justifies something in the present.
Please. Why are you so opposed to basic vetting of a candidate? DT's personal finances are probably what brings him down - and you think that the GOP won't do the very same thing to us if we give them a candidate that has tainted personal finances?
Who do you think we are missing out on? What ethical candidate would not be transparent with their finances?
Anyone in mind?
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Is he not "ethical" in your view?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2018, 08:59 AM - Edit history (1)
Have modern Democrats ever been drawn to a POTUS nominee who would not be transparent with their finances?
Is Brown the person you have in mind to run for POTUS in 2020 then?
Do you think that's why he refused to support a bill to require any POTUS candidate who wanted to get on the ballot in CA to release their tax returns?
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Got it. Thanks.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I think you understand the difference between POTUS and a governor, so the defensiveness is rather unneccessary.
I take it then that you are pulling for Brown to run for 2020.
Again - do you think that is a reason that he's refusing to require anyone in 2020, including Trump, to release tax returns as a condition of being on the ballot in CA?
And why do you react so defensively and angrily at suggesting that candidates be required to do something that has been the standard for POTUS candidates since the 70's? What reasons would a POTUS candidate have not to release them?
You want the Dems to lower their standards to Trump? Why on earth would we want or need to?
former9thward
(33,424 posts)But he is way too old. His time has come and gone. I supported him when he was running against Bill Clinton. I don't understand the fascination with tax returns. They don't show what people think they show. Maybe people who are so in favor of this don't even do their own taxes and just sign what an accountant gives them without looking at the return. So they don't actually know what information is and is not on them.
Presidential candidates already release a lot of financial information to the Federal Election Commission. I remember people saying Trump was going to drop out in 2015 rather than release his. He didn't drop out and submitted almost 1000 pages of information containing the companies he was associated with to the FEC (which is available to the public). I wonder if anyone even looked at it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Clearly not.
As a matter of fact, yes, "someone" looked at the information he released to the FEC. You really thought no one would? Because you weren't interested?
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/22/inside-trumps-finances-read-the-full-fec-report.html
Here's a great resource on why POTUS tax returns are very important, even if they aren't of interest to you:
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/07/27/why-is-the-tax-return-a-big-deal-and-what-information-can-you-learn-from-it/
Yearly income of the candidate
How much the candidate paid in taxes and the tax rate
What deductions and tax credits claimed
Real estate taxes and abatements
Investments
How much the candidate gave to charity (which could shed light on their values and priorities)
To whom the candidate owes money
Who are the candidates in business with and the financial positions of those companies (whether they have had gains or losses)
May indicate if money is being held offshore
On the financial disclosure forms:
Outside Income
Gifts
Assets/property owned
Specific investments/trusts
Possible conflicts of interest
Certain transactions/agreements made with businesses and people
Positions held at different companies outside of the government
Liabilities
It’s also important to remember that unlike Congress, presidents are exempt from conflict-of-interest laws.
This makes disclosure of income tax returns especially important to shed light on areas of possible conflicts of interest. Yearly salaries are often reported in the news but tax returns reveal so much more about the character of the candidate. Their debts give us a broader sense of the state of their finances, and perhaps more importantly an idea to whom they could feel beholden. We learn how much (or little) they paid in taxes, and whether they utilized loopholes in tax law to avoid paying those taxes. It sheds light on whether they conducted activity that they have criticized on the campaign trail.
Learning about candidates businesses, business partners and the state of those activities can help understand how their judgment might be affected by their financial transactions and debts.
We learn their values and priorities from learning which charities they support.
There is a reason why banks use tax returns when evaluating mortgages: the forms offer a snapshot of a person’s financial position and their financial decision making processes. Financial disclosure forms simply don’t offer a complete picture. The two documents together may give voters a better sense of how a candidate makes financial decisions. Voters should be able to evaluate the information contained in these documents together before deciding who to vote for in November.
If a POTUS candidate won't even turn over the documents required for a mortgage, you have to wonder what they are hiding.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)That we didn't know before? BTW tax returns don't necessarily show who you owe money to. I will restate I believe people who say such things don't do their own taxes.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 19, 2018, 08:12 AM - Edit history (3)
Got it.
I see you didn't bother to read the resources I provided before dismissing them.
And yes, loans do appear, especially if one is writing off the interest, because that's how you explain to the IRS where the money for the boat or the third home came from.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1098.pdf
Especially if a loan is forgiven.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2013/12/03/sure-loans-arent-income-convincing-irs-it-was-a-loan-priceless/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2017/03/15/president-trumps-tax-returns-what-can-they-really-tell-us/#294f96e6530f
Looking forward to your next evasion of the topic at hand, which is why you think that it's wrong to require financial transparency from a candidate after 2016, at least.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)Ballot access laws are constitutional and will play a role in 2020.
George II
(67,782 posts)...in order to be a Democratic candidate. As long as the rule doesn't discriminate a "private" organization/club can require anything it wants.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Has anyone in the DNC even suggested that? They are the ones who make the rules.
George II
(67,782 posts)...and others have caucuses.
A political party is somewhat like a private club (in fact in NYC the local Democratic committees are called "clubs" ), they can make whatever rules they want as long as they're not discriminatory.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)The DNC makes the rules on who can run for the Democratic nomination for president. The state parties have no power to determine WHO has ballot access. They have the power to determine HOW the ballot is accessed.
Midwestern Democrat
(841 posts)"We can't trust those moronic 'just plain folks' in the general electorate to make an informed decision about this matter, so their intellectual betters are just going to have to take that decision away from them." I don't know - that doesn't sound like a very winning message to me.
For the record, I believe a presidential candidate SHOULD release his tax returns - his refusal to do so would be a definite red flag to me and a serious impediment for my support - BUT - I want to be able to make that decision - whether I will vote for him or not - on MY OWN - I don't want elites in Washington making that decision FOR ME.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)Once these returns are out, trump will have less motivation to challenge these laws. Prof. Hasen thinks that trump will skip blue states with these laws because he will not win these states anyway https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/donald-trump-tax-returns-release-214950
It would be sad if sanders is the candidate who challenges these laws. I can see trump not challenging these laws but sanders filing complaints.
uponit7771
(91,964 posts)Gothmog
(155,389 posts)I volunteer a great deal of time on voter protection issues and have been in war rooms the last five or so elections. Prof. Hasen has a good blog on election law and he believes that these laws are constitutional. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/donald-trump-tax-returns-release-214950
The answer lies in another part of Article II—the part that received some important attention in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decision that Democrats love to hate. Famously, the 2000 case between Republican nominee George W. Bush and Democratic nominee Al Gore effectively handed the election to Bush when it ended the Florida recount.
Article II provides that the “state legislature” “may direct” “the manner” for choosing presidential electors. In Bush v. Gore, the Court stated that this Article II power given to state legislatures was “plenary,” meaning that the states have a broad power when it comes to presidential elections. Indeed, the Court wrote that even though state legislators have given each state’s voters the right to vote for presidential electors, at any time a state legislature can “take back the power” to appoint electors. In other words, if the California or Texas state legislature wanted to directly choose the state’s presidential electors in 2020, the state could do so. As Dean Vik Amar notes, the Constitution does not necessarily include a right of Americans to vote for president at all (and American citizens in U.S. territories do not have this right).
The logic then goes like this: If a state legislature can take back from the voters the right to vote at all for president, it may be able to use ballot-access laws to limit the candidate choices presented to voters. And doing so would not impinge on the Qualifications Clause in Article II because Congress ultimately counts the Electoral College votes and can police that Clause. If a state legislature, for example, chose electors supporting a candidate under the age of 35, the U.S. House of Representatives, which counts the Electoral College votes, could disregard those votes after deeming the underage candidate unqualified.
Prof. Hasen has some concerns about the wisdom of these laws and possible GOP retaliation if blue states adopt these laws. I also believe that these laws are valid
George II
(67,782 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)More than half of the states in the country considered similar legislation this year, according to an Assembly analysis of the bill. The Legislature’s own lawyers said the bill is legally questionable and would likely violate the qualifications clause of the U.S. Constitution. Legislative committees predicted the issue will likely end up in court.
Brown agreed the measure “may not be constitutional,” and said it could lead to states requiring a long list of items of potential candidates. “What would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?”
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article179062716.html
Note; Jerry Brown refused to release his tax returns during his last two elections for governor.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...adopted laws or is it that the Democratic Party in those states adopted rule changes?
From what I can see it could be acceptable if either take place. States are free to establish their own laws for candidates to be on the ballot. Even so, the Democratic Party can establish requirements for their candidates to be on the ballot on their line. If the candidate doesn't comply with their requirements, they are free to run on another line (republican, working family, unaffiliated, etc.)
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)If candidates have an issue with this rule than they will answer to the American people calling them out.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)the this could be any of over 3000 lies, acts of obstruction of justice, acts of treason or simply acts beyond reason and sense.
Answer is they would almost burn down the country.
My simple rule would make the right even bigger hypocrites.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)There is so much to learn from tax returns for example, do they live by what they campaign for? Do they give to charity? Do they have any conflicts of interest? I mean, I do not see why a candidate would not want to disclose who they are to the American people.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)is not all that charitable, for instance.
I could forgive someone who invested in questionable stuff as long as they paid their taxes and didnt try and hide it.
I could forgive a lot, but I cant forgive what I dont know about, that is for sure.
My rule could rule OUT people I really like, but rules are rules.
I watched
On Kimmel last night and all I could think of was damn. We sure had something there, didnt we. Amazing.
BTW this article talks about her book and that she snuck out of WH to celebrate gay marriage ruling.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/michelle-obama-reveals-she-snuck-out-white-house-celebrate-gay-n937186
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Is there a significance to the number eight?
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)I support Nancy, that it would get 100% approval.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)I say Yes!
brer cat
(26,463 posts)
jb5150
(1,292 posts)my last 8 years of taxes .. I would probably win easily because everyone would feel sorry for me. 
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts) 
MrsCoffee
(5,824 posts)I've been wondering how far some folks would go to support their candidate.
Guess I'll have to keep wondering, because apparently they have no problem giving up transparency.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,443 posts) Hortensis
(58,785 posts)then adopt the leader's views and goals (!!!) and, for the more hard-core followers, give unquestioning loyalty.
Apparently we almost all follow this shocking pattern to some degree, but some, like the trumpsters, to a strong degree. And we keep seeing the proof again and again. As with Sanders' tax returns and willingness to try to have the popular vote set aside if it doesn't favor him.
Seems to me we could keep ourselves from getting carried away by this horrible flaw by adopting even one little rule: Applying the same standard to all candidates. If Trump and Hillary are expected to make returns public, Sanders should also. Simple enough for anyone to understand. Of course just adhering to that would get people kicked out of certain forums pronto by angry loyalists.
PJMcK
(22,996 posts)After seven, they're shredded. If the IRS won't go further back than that, why should I expect anyone else to?
Except for that eight year, I agree whole-heartedly.
drray23
(8,000 posts)All my returns are stored in a file cabinet in my office at home. Even if not legally required to do so, I keep them. For example, if there ever is a need to justify my income over the years for purpose of retiirement or social securiity or if i ever run for office.
PJMcK
(22,996 posts)For me, it's a lot of paper!
In addition to my own documents, I'm an executor of an estate and the administrator for several privately-owned music companies. About 10 years ago, I had run out of space for all of the documents. Not only my accountant and lawyer, but every one of those representing the third parties, agreed that I could keep what the IRS requires and destroy anything earlier. So far, so good. It requires a yearly maintenance, of course.
By the way, the Social Security office already has your entire earnings history. A couple of years ago, due to a coroner's inversion of two digits in the deceased's Social Security Number, I was declared dead! In the course of correcting the mistake, the excellent SS representative told me that she could tell me how much I made every year since I began filing. Not really Big Brother, of course, but that's an amazingly large database.
Regardless, if you do run for office, let me know and I'll make a contribution to your campaign.
Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)uponit7771
(91,964 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)Donald has mtwo D's in it and he hasn't released his taxes!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,204 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(32,537 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)They are a bad risk. If we don't vet them, the GOP most certainly will.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)the candidate who has released his or her tax returns...and I'll go so far as to say this would factor more heavily than some other qualifications, though certainly less than certain others others.
But if I put up all kinds of hard-line deal breakers across the spectrum of my most important issues, I don't think anybody would make the cut.
That said, I'm fine with the DNC and us as its body of democratic voters, establishing a criterion that requires candidates to divulge their tax returns in order to be eligible to run.
Gothmog
(155,389 posts)To get onto the ballot in these states, a candidate will have to release their tax returns.
I really would love to see sanders full tax returns but I doubt that he will run and comply with these laws
jmowreader
(51,576 posts)With the person who created this need for tax returns, the really juicy stuff is going to be found in that set of books he doesn't show the government. It won't be in his tax returns; his accountants are better than that.