Vermont bill forces presidential candidates to disclose tax returns

[OriZ 3,165]

Ok, who volunteers to pick up the glove about the constitutionality of this?

 

MONTPELIER, Vt. —

A Vermont bill would require presidential candidates to make their tax returns public in order to get on the state ballot.

Advertisement

The Senate Government Operations Committee heard legal testimony on the bill Tuesday, about the question of constitutionality.

Sen. Pearson said he believes in the open access of Vermont's ballot, while committee member and bill sponsor Sen. Alison Clarkson said she has heard from a lot of her constituents that it's needed.

"Our constitution speaks to there being no corruption as candidates and it's a major issue after this election for people to know that their candidates have no financial conflicts of interest," Clarkson said. "It's a matter of transparency."

Bill advocate and Vermont Public Interest Research Group president Paul Burns said the push to require public tax returns for presidential candidates gained new steam in Vermont and elsewhere because of President Donald Trump.

Trump was the first major presidential candidate in the past 40 years to not voluntarily make public his tax returns.

A Pew Research Center poll released last month found that 60 percent of the public think Trump has a responsibility to release his tax returns.

Legislative counsel BetsyAnn Wrask said Vermont joins around 10 other states in efforts to make the legal change but the bill is not law yet. The committee plans to take the issue back up after town meeting day. 

http://www.mynbc5.com/article/vermont-bill-forces-presidential-candidates-to-disclose-tax-returns/8944268

[bcking 3,157]

I am in no way an expert on this topic, so it would be interesting if someone here was (though doubt it).

 

It has been my understanding that the requirements for being included on a ballot is state-specific, so in that way the states do have a right to add further requirements for their particular state. I'm not sure if there are differences in rules for the Presidential election vs. other elections.

 

If people were to make a constitutional argument against it I guess it would be focused on preventing "undue burden" to particular candidates. In the past that has been used to help support independent candidates by limiting fees requiring to register etc... so it would be twisting it a little bit here. 

[OriZ 3,165]

Well to me it is about the voters' constitutional rights and whether or not they are allowed to prevent them from voting for the person they want to vote for, by not allowing them on the ballot, simply because they disagree with them not releasing their taxes.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

Well to me it is about the voters' constitutional rights and whether or not they are allowed to prevent them from voting for the person they want to vote for, by not allowing them on the ballot, simply because they disagree with them not releasing their taxes.

They could always do a write in. Mickey Mouse always gets some votes. 

[OriZ 3,165]

8 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

They could always do a write in. Mickey Mouse always gets some votes. 

 

Well my wife has voted for Snoopy or for her cats many times, but still, you gonna make so many people write it in?

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

 

Well my wife has voted for Snoopy or for her cats many times, but still, you gonna make so many people write it in?

There is precedent for setting restrictions already. The most obvious being that there are deadlines to be included on ballots. It has been decided that doesn't limit anyone's right to vote for a person (likely since they can write in), so they will likely argue the same here.

[Ban Hammer 14,300]

4 hours ago, OriZ said:

 

 A Pew Research Center poll released last month found that 60 percent of the public think Trump has a responsibility to release his tax returns.
 

that says more about how uneducated the public is than anything else.

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

that says more about how uneducated the public is than anything else.

In what way?

 

Stating that you think he has a responsibility, does not mean you think his responsibility is a legal one.

 

I think he has a responsibility to act like a mature adult as President and representative of our country. Doesn't mean he is legally required to act that way, as he has shown since being inaugurated.

[CaliCat 3,957]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

I am in no way an expert on this topic, so it would be interesting if someone here was (though doubt it).

 

It has been my understanding that the requirements for being included on a ballot is state-specific, so in that way the states do have a right to add further requirements for their particular state. I'm not sure if there are differences in rules for the Presidential election vs. other elections.

 

If people were to make a constitutional argument against it I guess it would be focused on preventing "undue burden" to particular candidates. In the past that has been used to help support independent candidates by limiting fees requiring to register etc... so it would be twisting it a little bit here. 

 

If the law doesn't challenge the 10th amendment, or any dormant clause, it should be ok. Until recently we lived in a country where presidential candidates were honest enough to disclose their tax returns to their employers. In this new alternative-fact reality, honesty is to be shunned and mocked. It follows that laws can be enacted to pick up where the candidates' morals left off. Go VT!

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

In what way?

 

Stating that you think he has a responsibility, does not mean you think his responsibility is a legal one.

 

I think he has a responsibility to act like a mature adult as President and representative of our country. Doesn't mean he is legally required to act that way, as he has shown since being inaugurated.

 

Trump is none of that. His actions are those of an immature entitled child, and even his way to the Oval is questionable.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Imma go out on a limb and say it's not constitutional. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 sets out the qualifications for the office of the presidency, and the requirement that tax returns be produced is clearly not there. This is an area of law where there is implied federal preemption -- so-called field preemption -- of any state law, so any Vermont law on qualifications should be struck down under the Preemption Clause (Article VI, Clause 2).

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Imma go out on a limb and say it's not constitutional. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 sets out the qualifications for the office of the presidency, and the requirement that tax returns be produced is clearly not there. This is an area of law where there is implied federal preemption -- so-called field preemption -- of any state law, so any Vermont law on qualifications should be struck down under the Preemption Clause (Article VI, Clause 2).

Ya I was thinking the office of President had set qualifications listed in the constitution, which will make state laws setting new requirements difficult/unconstitutional.

[Merle 458]

If i was going to run id start a "foundation" so that I could launder money with it but still show i only made like 30k a year. Yea, yea that's the ticket.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

You can see a sort of parallel in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), wherein Congress was not allowed to exclude a member who has been duly elected and meets all the qualifications. If you want to add to the qualifications, you need to amend the US Constitution and good luck on that one!

 

On the other hand, the state-level legislation (which has all strangely disappeared for some reason that I TOTALLY DON'T KNOW WHY) that required presidential candidates to show proof they were natural born citizens probably (possibly?) would be constitutional, since that is a qualification listed in Article II. Look, I love a little bit of fantasy cosplay alternative universe librul crazy funtimes too, but this is all such a waste of time, money, etc.

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Imma go out on a limb and say it's not constitutional. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 sets out the qualifications for the office of the presidency, and the requirement that tax returns be produced is clearly not there. This is an area of law where there is implied federal preemption -- so-called field preemption -- of any state law, so any Vermont law on qualifications should be struck down under the Preemption Clause (Article VI, Clause 2).

That's exactly what I was gonna say but you beat me to it.