• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Senate approves bill requiring presidential candidates to submit tax returns

dcsports said:
Incorrect. I was responding to someone asking why Trump isn't providing his returns.

As for this law (and the article says it passed the California senate only) - It's going to be overruled by a court as unconstitutional and in conflict with federal privacy laws regarding tax returns.
Click to expand...
We've gone through this in other threads. Taxes aren't protected from the government by privacy laws. Moreover, running for office isn't mandatory, it's voluntary. If one voluntarily decides to run for president or governor and be on the ballot in California, one must release tax information or not be on the ballot.
 
I don't think this will fly. It will be challenged and struck down.

Funny how liberals insist of such things, but refuse to require proper ID when voting.
 
MTAtech said:
First, a Republican who fails to make public their tax filings won't be on the ballot, so I doubt they'd win the popular vote in that state.
Second, a state can say that only candidates who are eligible can be awarded electors.
Third, my point was that if Trump wasn't on the ballot, other down-ticket Republican candidates would be harmed, since many Republicans would stay home.
Click to expand...

Republicans won;t win California anyway.

It will not matter.
 
upsideguy said:
Your point 1 is utter nonsense. There is virtually no information in a tax return that is of interest to competitors; and the reason real estate developers have multiple K-1's has nothing to do with "archaic New York tax laws" That, my friend, is just a ton of gobbly-gook.

Your point 2 is less nonsensical and more cynical. Yes, people want to scrutinize the tax returns of Presidential candidates. In Trump's case, however, given his international nature of his business operations often with nations that are not American allies, the scrutinizing of his return may be a matter of national security. The manner in which has gone to extreme lengths to impede that otherwise normal step in disclosure, should be troubling to anyone that loves this country.

Real Estate developers do have very complex tax returns that are full of LLC's, LLP's and corporations. The release of Trump's returns would not be like any other that has run for President. However, their complexity is no reason to not see the returns.
Click to expand...

I was offering an explanation that should be pretty simple -- obviously you don't care to hear it.

The tax return really isn't where you are going to find 'national security' issues. That's silliness. And certainly the public is not in a position to do so. And what 'extreme steps' are you talking about? He didn't release it, and isn't required to do so. He's protected by law from doing so, and the people asking for it are doing so for political reasons - not from any sense of patriotism.
 
OscarLevant said:
Now, if we can get more states to jump on the bandwagon, no president will be allowed to hide his taxes.
I think the Citizens need to know if our president is a crook.
Click to expand...
This is something that needs to be challenged in the court to see if its legal. Im not sure a state can dictate what qualifies someone to run for a federal office. It might be legal but it seems very iffy.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Every presidential candidate for many years has disclosed their tax returns., except Trump. There is no mixing anything up. What is he hiding? Given his links to the mob, business failures, financial troubles, this should concern everybody. Except the delusional, hypocritical, brainwashed right wingers
Click to expand...
Whatever he is hiding he is within rights to do so.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
MTAtech said:
We've gone through this in other threads. Taxes aren't protected from the government by privacy laws. Moreover, running for office isn't mandatory, it's voluntary. If one voluntarily decides to run for president or governor and be on the ballot in California, one must release tax information or not be on the ballot.
Click to expand...

Tax records are absolutely protected.

And while running for office is 'voluntary' - this particular requirement is fraught with issues, and is going to be overturned.
 
MTAtech said:
First, a Republican who fails to make public their tax filings won't be on the ballot, so I doubt they'd win the popular vote in that state.
Second, a state can say that only candidates who are eligible can be awarded electors.
Third, my point was that if Trump wasn't on the ballot, other down-ticket Republican candidates would be harmed, since many Republicans would stay home.
Click to expand...

That candidate won't have to be on the California ballot to win the national popular vote, but you knew that.

California passed a law requiring her electoral votes go to the candidate who won the national popular vote.
 
apdst said:
California passed a law requiring her electoral votes go to the candidate who won the national popular vote.
Click to expand...

That law should also be struck down.
 
MTAtech said:
We've gone through this in other threads. Taxes aren't protected from the government by privacy laws. Moreover, running for office isn't mandatory, it's voluntary. If one voluntarily decides to run for president or governor and be on the ballot in California, one must release tax information or not be on the ballot.
Click to expand...

Where do you get that crazy idea from? :lamo
 
Lutherf said:
I'm not sure how a state can impose a requirement for someone to run for president that exceeds the Constitutional requirements. Actually, I can see HOW they do it but I don't see how it can possibly withstand a challenge on Constitutional grounds.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS pretty much just said that they have no bearing on how states run their elections with gerrymandering case.
 
dcsports said:
Notably, they didn't require candidates for ALL offices to provide this -- only presidential candidates.

It's ALWAYS a bad idea to write a law targeting an individual.
Click to expand...

How is "ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES" and individual?
 
OscarLevant said:
Now, if we can get more states to jump on the bandwagon, no president will be allowed to hide his taxes.
I think the Citizens need to know if our president is a crook.
Click to expand...

Showboating on things that are unconstitutional on their face, is a convenient way to give the corrupt state media something to print besides gang warfare, opioids, homeless, outflow of taxpayers, inflow of vagrants.

And to those of you who think it is constitutional, you are just plain uneducated.
 
Lutherf said:
As we have seen from the New Democratic Party, what is currently law is important only to the extent that it can be pointed to as an example of how the racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic patriarchy has enslaved the nation for the past 240 years.
Click to expand...

Feel better? Did you get it all out Luther?
 
ocean515 said:
Not surprised the Progressives destroying California have such hatred for the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Who is in charge of elections in this country per the constitution?

You cons practically rolled on your back just to masturbate into your own oral cavity with glee over the conservative scotus' ruling that states run the elections so that you can keep gerrymandering and now that that same principle applies here you are trying to go against it. Too funny.
 
Last edited:
Roadvirus said:
While the streets of San Fran and LA are filling up with homeless people, garbage, people **** and used needles, THIS is what they consider a priority? Typical LIBERAL state.
Click to expand...

Well THAT sure isn't much on topic. :lol:
 
Conservative said:
Your state is so ****ed up that this is a major issue for you??? The hell with the homeless polluting and destroying communities, the worst poverty in the nation but get involved in an issue that has no affect on the state as your state has no control over Federal elections nor does a President's tax returns affect you. Your state gave Hillary a 4 million vote win and she lost the electoral college. You think not allowing a candidate on the ballot because of no FEDERAL tax returns is going to matter?? Wow, I really do feel sorry for people like you who do everything you can to divert from the screwed up state in which you live
Click to expand...

If it's no big deal to you, why are you crying so hard about it?
 
MTAtech said:
We've gone through this in other threads. Taxes aren't protected from the government by privacy laws. Moreover, running for office isn't mandatory, it's voluntary. If one voluntarily decides to run for president or governor and be on the ballot in California, one must release tax information or not be on the ballot.
apdst said:
Where do you get that crazy idea from? :lamo
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Where? Common Law and common sense. When I apply for a loan at a bank, they want to see my credit report. Oh, but that's personal information says apdst. They require me to sign a document giving them the right to see it. No credit report, no loan. In the California case, no tax records, no placement on the ballot.

These concepts are easy to understand -- except for those that are invested not to understand.
 
poweRob said:
SCOTUS pretty much just said that they have no bearing on how states run their elections with gerrymandering case.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering doesn't impose a requirement for office that exceeds the Constitutional requirements.
 
Lutherf said:
Gerrymandering doesn't impose a requirement for office that exceeds the Constitutional requirements.
Click to expand...

No hypocritical cherry too big to pick for you cons.

:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom