Democrats to ask for 10 years of presidential tax returns in new bill

[brooklynite]

Source: CNN

Democrats are making presidential tax returns a focal point in one of their first pieces of legislation, an effort to build the case to the American people that time is up on President Donald Trump keeping his own tax returns from the public, shutting what could be a window into his personal wealth.

According to two sources familiar with the discussions, Democrats will include a provision in their new bill that would require presidential nominees to disclose 10 years of tax returns shortly after they become the nominee. Vice presidents would also be required to disclose a decade of returns. The tax returns would then be posted on the Federal Election Commission's website for public viewing.

The 10-year requirement is new marker. At the end of last year, Democrats had disclosed H.R. 1 would require presidential candidates to release just three years of tax returns, but a source familiar with the process said that after reviewing precedent, the marker was moved to a decade of returns.

The provision would be included in H.R. 1, a far-reaching bill that makes sweeping ethics changes as well as lays out Democratic priorities on voting rights and health care. The legislation isn't expected to pass the Republican-controlled Senate or be signed by Trump, also a Republican. However, it will give committees an opportunity to set markers on Democratic priorities in the new Congress.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/politics/trump-tax-returns-democrats/index.html

---

Not clear what the legal basis for this is (other than access to Federal funding) since Presidential Elections are technically at the State level.

[jberryhill]

1. I doubt it is Constitutional

[Gothmog]

7. Candidates who won't disclose taxes shouldn't be on the ballot

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

Our federal Constitution allows states to create ballot access requirements that ensure that the ballots for every office, including the office of presidential elector, are comprehensible and informative.

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

[jberryhill]

8. Tribe doesn't address the point here

You are looking at a piece on STATE ballot access laws.

This is a proposed federal eligibility law. Very different kettle of fish. On top of the implicit eligibility requirement is a federalism issue.

There is nothing to "trust Tribe on this" since the piece you are quoting is not on point.

[NYC Liberal]

20. Requiring candidates to release tax returns isn't an eligibility requirement.

If it's the same bill that was proposed before, the only result of a candidate refusing to release their tax returns is that the returns would be released directly by the IRS. There are no punitive legal consequences.

[Midwestern Democrat]

16. I think the US Supreme Court would actually strike this down 9-0 summarily without oral argument.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. Needed to draw a clear line of conflicts of interests, which rump obviously has tons of, based ...

upon his actions and non actions so far. Why would he be opposed to this? He's advocating transparency, but then w/ him, no. Hypocrite.

[Mike Nelson]

3. Great idea!

… ten years seems reasonable. I don't mind wealthy people running for President... just let us know you've followed the law!

[FBaggins]

4. Doesn't matter whether it's constitutional or not

They know it won’t be taken up by the Senate (let alone passed and then signed by the president). Heck... knowing that is probably the only way that many Democrats would even vote for it.

[Gothmog]

6. The State of Maryland has a ballot access law that requires tax returns

The State of Maryland already has a ballot access law that requires release of tax returns and several other blue states will be adopting these laws. In order to get onto the ballot in these states, candidate will have to file five to ten years of tax returns. This will apply to independent candidates like Jill Stein.

I think that these laws are enforceable and will help

[FBaggins]

10. It's still an open question whether that law is constitutional

The law hasn’t been enforced yet and there are reasonable arguments against it being constitutional.

But that’s beside the point, because the very argument that it could be constitutional (that it’s a state law and states control elections - particularly ballot access) is why this proposed law would not be.

[Gothmog]

11. Candidates who won't disclose taxes shouldn't be on the ballot

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

Our federal Constitution allows states to create ballot access requirements that ensure that the ballots for every office, including the office of presidential elector, are comprehensible and informative.

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

[FBaggins]

17. They certainly shouldn't get elected

But the clear solution to that is the electorate.

Prof. Tribe disagrees with your analysis

Remind me again how many votes he gets on the Supreme Court?

Regardless... He doesn't disagree with me because I'm not saying that state ballot access laws are unconstitutional... only that it's an open question. Neither Maryland passing such a law nor Prof. Tribe opining is definitive. My point was that Congress likely doesn't have the authority to pass such a law.

[jberryhill]

21. The simple solution is not to vote for ones who don't

Like term limits, this is another rule along the lines of "voters are too dumb to make responsible decisions".

[Gothmog]

22. That did not work earlier

Stein, trump and sanders all refused to release tax returns

[jberryhill]

23. Then other people felt differently about the topic

I'm not sure what you mean by it "did not work."

Anyone who believed that a presidential candidate should release their tax returns voted for a candidate other than Stein, Trump or Sanders.

It's the same deal with term limits. If you believe in term limits, then vote for a candidate other than the incumbent who has been in for what you believe should be the limit.

[Gothmog]

13. FEC rules require a ton of financial disclosures already

The Federal Election Commission requires a ton of financial disclosure already including full listing of assets and liabilities. This is a logical expansion of the disclosures already being made under federal law.

As a practical matter, this will not matter greatly if enough states join Maryland in adopting ballot access laws

[FBaggins]

18. Only in very broad-brush terms.

including full listing of assets and liabilities.

Not really. It's mostly limited to accounts and the reporting is in broad ranges. $1,000-$15,000, 15k-50k, 50k-100k, 100k-250k, etc. all the way up to >$50,000,000.

Tax returns include not only far more detail, but also MANY things that PFDs don't

[MichMan]

12. Who will have access to see them ?

Any resident of the state? High ranking state officials? Will they be posted on line?

Do they apply to all state office holders or just presidential candidates only?

[Gothmog]

14. These returns will be posted on line

[MichMan]

15. Do the rules also apply to all house and senate candidates too?

[Gothmog]

5. This is a good move

Link to tweet

[Rizen]

9. Always get it in writing

The Trump presidency has proven if it's not actually a law Republican tribalism has no problem ignoring ethics and convention. Not that they have a problem ignoring the law either.

[Gothmog]

19. Thank you Senator Warren

Link to tweet

[apnu]

24. If Trump signs this, I will eat my hat.

I don't see Trump ever signing a bill that makes him show his taxes.