Suggestions for the Democrats in the House sitting for the 116th Congress

[Kirkrapine]

Bear in mind we're not dealing with the privilege against self-incrimination. We don't want candidates to release their tax returns so they can be prosecuted for crimes, but so we can see what kind of people they are and to whom they might be beholden. The voters have a legitimate interest in knowing that, and so does the opposing candidate's campaign org.

 

[HisArpy]

Financial disclosure is routine to get on a ballot. At least where I live.

Probably not for national office. And I'd be surprised if it's ever been challenged beyond the trial level because it is clearly in violation of the Constitution. Especially since the breadth of the compelled speech is much much larger than something as inconsequential as a motto on a license plate which the SCOTUS had already found to be compelled speech.

To other points:

It's NOT a "job application". For those who are trying to insist it is; no company allows the employees to choose the members of the Board of Directors.

And, for KO, the case citation was relevant in that compelled speech which can inadvertently reveal behavior previously unknown to law enforcement violates the 5th Amendment regardless of whether it's for "an election" or any other purpose. There is no limitation on either the 5th or the 1st in regards to compelled speech. "Speech" in that context is well defined and settled law.

As for the "don't run if you don't want to file" thing; that is a violation of the 1st Amendment in that the requirement chills lawful speech (the running for elected office) if the candidate prefers to not have his financial status known to the general public.


From there I question the purpose of the requirement. What does a President's financial status for 5 years prior to election have to do with his ability to be Commander In Chief? Or to formulate Foreign Policy? Or sign/veto legislation? You think only the rich can do that? Then take, for example, Andrew Carnegie. He made a fortune in the first half of his lifetime and spent the second half giving it away. Under this proposed "requirement" Carnegie wouldn't have been a good choice for President because his personal finances operated at a loss every year. Yet the man was more than qualified to run a multi-national steel operation during the heyday of American industrialization.

The whole idea is ridiculous. It's merely another way for the disgruntled to try to stick it to Trump because they don't like him. So, instead of gritting their teeth and sucking it up for the next 2-6 years, they want to scorch the earth and then salt it.

 

[HisArpy]

Bear in mind we're not dealing with the privilege against self-incrimination. We don't want candidates to release their tax returns so they can be prosecuted for crimes, but so we can see what kind of people they are and to whom they might be beholden. The voters have a legitimate interest in knowing that, and so does the opposing candidate's campaign org.

This information is already available through FEC filings. Didn't you know that?

 

[Kirkrapine]

The whole idea is ridiculous. It's merely another way for the disgruntled to try to stick it to Trump because they don't like him.

The Dems can get his returns by subpoena power, they don't need legislation for that.

 

[Kirkrapine]

This information is already available through FEC filings. Didn't you know that?

All the info from your past 5 years of tax returns?

 

[IG_88]

Or vote.

The voting has already happened. Your thread is about what the House should do but they are just the house. Even if they were to bring up all that (and they won't) it won't go anywhere. It's a pipe dream.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

What does a President's financial status for 5 years prior to election have to do with his ability to be Commander In Chief? Or to formulate Foreign Policy? Or sign/veto legislation?

The Emoluments clause clearly indicates that the Framers intended that the President not personally profit from their service. Financial disclosure is the method whereby we determine the financial underpinnings of a person's wealth. The financial underpinnings of a person's wealth are probably the most determinant factors in how a person will perform as Commander In Chief, their formulations of Foreign Policy and the legislation they are prone to sign or veto. That and the company they keep and their backers. (read the last sentence as "Citizen's United and dark money is bad too" )

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Here are the Problem Solvers Caucus suggestions for rules reforms:

The first proposal would require that any legislation that achieves 290 co-sponsors — three-fifths of the House — be debated and get a timely floor vote.

The second would mandate that any amendment with at least 20 co-sponsors from both parties would get a debate and a vote.

The final proposal says every member in every new Congress can introduce one bill on the committee on which he or she serves that would be guaranteed debate and a committee vote as long as the measure is bipartisan and germane to that panel’s jurisdiction.

 

[Kirkrapine]

What does a President's financial status for 5 years prior to election have to do with his ability to be Commander In Chief? Or to formulate Foreign Policy? Or sign/veto legislation?

It may have to do with his moral fitness for the office -- a point Pubs were very insistent upon when Clinton held it. What else was the point of investigating Whitewater?