If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Massachusetts ballot initiative would require presidential candidates to release tax returns   ( thehill.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, tax returns, Elections, Initiative, Massachusetts ballot initiative, Referendum, income tax returns, presidential candidates, potential ballot initiatives  
•       •       •

822 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Sep 2017 at 10:30 AM (36 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-07 09:22:20 AM  
i0.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2017-09-07 09:32:41 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2017-09-07 09:52:49 AM  
Now, if only this would become nationwide...
 
2017-09-07 09:55:56 AM  
If enough states enact it, as a requirement for getting on that state's ballot, it'll essentially be nationwide.
 
2017-09-07 09:57:51 AM  

Anastacya: Now, if only this would become nationwide...


if he has to do it in one state, it would be revealed to the public nationally.

unless he decides to not be on the ballot in deep blue MA, which is possible but would send up serious red flags as to why he isn't bothering to run in MA
 
2017-09-07 10:02:47 AM  
If they made it for ALL candidates - local and national - I'd be ok with that.  This is just reactionary.
 
2017-09-07 10:04:58 AM  

SpaceyCat: If they made it for ALL candidates - local and national - I'd be ok with that.  This is just reactionary.


baby steps for a baby man
 
2017-09-07 10:05:17 AM  

Anastacya: Now, if only this would become nationwide...


That you have different federal election rules by State is f$cking stupid/crazy.
 
2017-09-07 10:18:43 AM  

SpaceyCat: If they made it for ALL candidates - local and national - I'd be ok with that.  This is just reactionary.


Given the fact that Massachusetts is so reliably Democratic that it was the only state that didn't vote for Nixon, I doubt the Republican base would have any problem with their candidate blowing it off...It's kind of toothless. Now if the Purple states passed something like this. That could make a difference.
 
2017-09-07 10:25:43 AM  

ginandbacon: SpaceyCat: If they made it for ALL candidates - local and national - I'd be ok with that.  This is just reactionary.

Given the fact that Massachusetts is so reliably Democratic that it was the only state that didn't vote for Nixon, I doubt the Republican base would have any problem with their candidate blowing it off...It's kind of toothless. Now if the Purple states passed something like this. That could make a difference.


I was thinking that also.
 
2017-09-07 10:31:55 AM  
It's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, people will demand to know all the basic details about the lives their leaders have led in order make a judgment as to their fitness to serve
 
2017-09-07 10:32:26 AM  

somedude210: Anastacya: Now, if only this would become nationwide...

if he has to do it in one state, it would be revealed to the public nationally.

unless he decides to not be on the ballot in deep blue MA, which is possible but would send up serious red flags as to why he isn't bothering to run in MA


True, but you're also assuming that everyone would comply. If only one state does it, I would imagine that it would be easy to fight it. If every state does it, there is less wiggle room and you can't just choose to ignore it. Would it be flouting the law? Yes. But I would think that a candidate would be able to afford a lawyer to fight a state attorney and stall for ages if they really wanted to. Would it be bad optics? Yes, but that hasn't stopped Two Scoops, either.
 
2017-09-07 10:32:50 AM  

ginandbacon: SpaceyCat: If they made it for ALL candidates - local and national - I'd be ok with that.  This is just reactionary.

Given the fact that Massachusetts is so reliably Democratic that it was the only state that didn't vote for Nixon, I doubt the Republican base would have any problem with their candidate blowing it off...It's kind of toothless. Now if the Purple states passed something like this. That could make a difference.


Honestly I think it's mostly a test case to determine whether something of this nature will stand up to court scrutiny
 
2017-09-07 10:33:12 AM  
Seems reasonable.  I mean, conservatives are all about state's rights, aren't they?
 
2017-09-07 10:34:08 AM  
You mean like pretty much any other job? Neat.
 
2017-09-07 10:38:18 AM  

megarian: You mean like pretty much any other job? Neat.


I do not recall ever submitting a copy of previous tax returns when applying for employment in my current position.
 
2017-09-07 10:39:44 AM  
Not sure it needs to go this far. If a candidate doesnt want to release tax returns, you should just assume he is a criminal and not elect him.
 
2017-09-07 10:40:09 AM  

Lost Thought 00: ginandbacon: SpaceyCat: If they made it for ALL candidates - local and national - I'd be ok with that.  This is just reactionary.

Given the fact that Massachusetts is so reliably Democratic that it was the only state that didn't vote for Nixon, I doubt the Republican base would have any problem with their candidate blowing it off...It's kind of toothless. Now if the Purple states passed something like this. That could make a difference.

Honestly I think it's mostly a test case to determine whether something of this nature will stand up to court scrutiny


Sadly, it probably would not. States may not impose qualifications for office beyond those set forth in the Constitution (minimum age and so forth). Technically this would not be an additional qualification for the office, just a requirement to gain ballot access, but functionally those are the same thing and I suspect that's how the Court would rule.
 
2017-09-07 10:40:34 AM  
This has been on my FB feed this morning, with a bunch of whackjobs saying "Trump did release his taxes, Obama did not!".  WTF?
 
2017-09-07 10:40:56 AM  
I'm in favor of this, though, let's face it, it wouldn't have changed anything.

During the campaign, Trump was revealed as a racist, rapist, charity cheat, scam college operator, and general liar.  People voted for him anyway.

He mocked the disabled, a POW, and a dead veteran's grieving parents.  People voted for him anyway.

You really think finding out he had a deal to build in Moscow would change anything?  Christ, he's still in office now and he's done some truly horrible things that threaten national security and its all rallies and what not as usual.
 
2017-09-07 10:41:03 AM  
This post adds nothing to the conversation.
 
2017-09-07 10:41:33 AM  

weddingsinger: I'm in favor of this, though, let's face it, it wouldn't have changed anything.

During the campaign, Trump was revealed as a racist, rapist, charity cheat, scam college operator, and general liar.  People voted for him anyway.

He mocked the disabled, a POW, and a dead veteran's grieving parents.  People voted for him anyway.

You really think finding out he had a deal to build in Moscow would change anything?  Christ, he's still in office now and he's done some truly horrible things that threaten national security and its all rallies and what not as usual.


To be entirely fair to the electorate: her emails.
 
2017-09-07 10:42:08 AM  
This is fine....no, really.
 
2017-09-07 10:42:30 AM  
I'll take "Things That Are Unconstitutional" for $600, Alex.
 
2017-09-07 10:43:31 AM  
Is it possible to do it for the primary ballot? MA being so blue, it is not gonna have an effect in 2020.
 
2017-09-07 10:44:12 AM  
Normal people can't buy a house without showing returns. Why should we let someone be president?

/yay state's rights
 
2017-09-07 10:45:13 AM  
Wait a minute!  Isn't that law a little bit unfair to horrible tax cheats?
 
2017-09-07 10:45:46 AM  

Dimensio: megarian: You mean like pretty much any other job? Neat.

I do not recall ever submitting a copy of previous tax returns when applying for employment in my current position.


But many jobs do go through a background check which includes financial history.  They don't NEED you to release your tax returns, they can find out anything they wanted on the back end (with your consent, of course).
 
2017-09-07 10:46:21 AM  

Dimensio: weddingsinger: I'm in favor of this, though, let's face it, it wouldn't have changed anything.

During the campaign, Trump was revealed as a racist, rapist, charity cheat, scam college operator, and general liar.  People voted for him anyway.

He mocked the disabled, a POW, and a dead veteran's grieving parents.  People voted for him anyway.

You really think finding out he had a deal to build in Moscow would change anything?  Christ, he's still in office now and he's done some truly horrible things that threaten national security and its all rallies and what not as usual.

To be entirely fair to the electorate: her emails.


I salute you, sir.

img.fark.netView Full Size


/though, lol, yeah... GODDAMNITSOMUCHIHATEPEOPLE
 
2017-09-07 10:47:45 AM  
or what?
 
2017-09-07 10:48:08 AM  
States adding requirements to the Constitutional ones for presidential office will never pass the first court hearing or any of the appeals.
Just like states adding term limits for their federal representatives was knocked down.  That puts requirements they live in their own districts on shaky ground, but no one has ever really challenged them because the district voters reject outsiders anyway.
 
2017-09-07 10:48:15 AM  

ginandbacon: SpaceyCat: If they made it for ALL candidates - local and national - I'd be ok with that.  This is just reactionary.

Given the fact that Massachusetts is so reliably Democratic that it was the only state that didn't vote for Nixon, I doubt the Republican base would have any problem with their candidate blowing it off...It's kind of toothless. Now if the Purple states passed something like this. That could make a difference.


but then the question arises of "are you blowing it off because you don't want to reveal your tax returns?" Which would obviously follow with "what are you hiding?" Yeah, you can just not be on the ballot but it'll get people asking questions
 
2017-09-07 10:49:25 AM  

Lost Thought 00: ginandbacon: SpaceyCat: If they made it for ALL candidates - local and national - I'd be ok with that.  This is just reactionary.

Given the fact that Massachusetts is so reliably Democratic that it was the only state that didn't vote for Nixon, I doubt the Republican base would have any problem with their candidate blowing it off...It's kind of toothless. Now if the Purple states passed something like this. That could make a difference.

Honestly I think it's mostly a test case to determine whether something of this nature will stand up to court scrutiny


That's how it struck me as well, like a test balloon...
 
2017-09-07 10:49:36 AM  

mrshowrules: Anastacya: Now, if only this would become nationwide...

That you have different federal election rules by State is f$cking stupid/crazy.


The constitution was designed so most things are to be handled by the states and not the Federal government.  This has been weakened over the years, but the basic principle still applies in many cases, such as elections (although only partly, of course-there are plenty of Federal rules that apply).
 
2017-09-07 10:49:51 AM  

Anastacya: somedude210: Anastacya: Now, if only this would become nationwide...

if he has to do it in one state, it would be revealed to the public nationally.

unless he decides to not be on the ballot in deep blue MA, which is possible but would send up serious red flags as to why he isn't bothering to run in MA

True, but you're also assuming that everyone would comply. If only one state does it, I would imagine that it would be easy to fight it. If every state does it, there is less wiggle room and you can't just choose to ignore it. Would it be flouting the law? Yes. But I would think that a candidate would be able to afford a lawyer to fight a state attorney and stall for ages if they really wanted to. Would it be bad optics? Yes, but that hasn't stopped Two Scoops, either.


I suspect that a lot of traditions that "haven't stopped" Fat Donny will be codified into law as soon as Democrats are back in power again: tax disclosure, emolument compliance, business divestment, not hiring your entire unemployable family into the government...

Through the embarrassing and detestable conduct of Republican President Donald Trump, the Republicans have conclusively demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to conduct themselves properly without strict rules and stricter consequences.
 
2017-09-07 10:50:32 AM  

somedude210: Anastacya: Now, if only this would become nationwide...

if he has to do it in one state, it would be revealed to the public nationally.

unless he decides to not be on the ballot in deep blue MA, which is possible but would send up serious red flags as to why he isn't bothering to run in MA


He will not put his name on the ballot in MA and his voters won't care.  Everyone finding out he's a not as rich as he says he is would be far worse then anything else.  So this strategy can only become effective if it infects the purple states of the great lakes, and that might actually happen if there is a democratic governor and at least 1 democratic senator.  If any of the purple states require he release his taxes to put his name on the ballot I GUARANTEE Trump will not run for re-election.  He would rather give up the presidency then show everyone he's not a billionaire.
 
2017-09-07 10:50:36 AM  
Well that will get shot down by a federal court in a hot minute. They loath laws that restrict ballot access.

And, people need to get over the tax return and instead focus on a more robust financial disclosure form for federal candidates. If you want to see who exactly Trump owes money to and what the interest rates are, as well as what his exact sources of income are, you're only going to get through a financial disclosure form.
 
2017-09-07 10:51:03 AM  

weddingsinger: I'm in favor of this, though, let's face it, it wouldn't have changed anything.

During the campaign, Trump was revealed as a racist, rapist, charity cheat, scam college operator, and general liar.  People voted for him anyway..


It might have shown that he's not VERY VERY RICH AND BIGLY SUCCESSFUL which is one of the selling points that the rubes love about him.
 
2017-09-07 10:53:33 AM  

weddingsinger: Dimensio: weddingsinger: I'm in favor of this, though, let's face it, it wouldn't have changed anything.

During the campaign, Trump was revealed as a racist, rapist, charity cheat, scam college operator, and general liar.  People voted for him anyway.

He mocked the disabled, a POW, and a dead veteran's grieving parents.  People voted for him anyway.

You really think finding out he had a deal to build in Moscow would change anything?  Christ, he's still in office now and he's done some truly horrible things that threaten national security and its all rallies and what not as usual.

To be entirely fair to the electorate: her emails.

I salute you, sir.

[img.fark.net image 480x270]

/though, lol, yeah... GODDAMNITSOMUCHIHATEPEOPLE


The only thing more despicable than her nazi salute was her cowardly, smirking denial that that was her intent.
 
2017-09-07 10:56:54 AM  

ginandbacon: SpaceyCat: If they made it for ALL candidates - local and national - I'd be ok with that.  This is just reactionary.

Given the fact that Massachusetts is so reliably Democratic that it was the only state that didn't vote for Nixon, I doubt the Republican base would have any problem with their candidate blowing it off...It's kind of toothless. Now if the Purple states passed something like this. That could make a difference.


Minnesota?
 
2017-09-07 10:58:18 AM  
Just to be clear, the only person that will react negatively to Trump releasing his taxes is Trump.  All of his supporters, and everyone that votes republican doesn't give two shiats what it says on his tax returns.  Everyone else despises Trump, and the tax returns will either solidify their opposition, or be brushed away for him not donating enough money.

With this in mind, the only reason for Trump not to release his taxes is to protect his ego.  He doesn't want people to know that he's not as rich as he alleges to be, that is his entire persona, and it's one big con.
 
2017-09-07 10:58:25 AM  

Geotpf: I'll take "Things That Are Unconstitutional" for $600, Alex.


On what grounds?

Seriously, no snark. I've heard this point before but never seen it explained.
 
2017-09-07 11:02:10 AM  

SwiftFox: States adding requirements to the Constitutional ones for presidential office will never pass the first court hearing or any of the appeals.
Just like states adding term limits for their federal representatives was knocked down.  That puts requirements they live in their own districts on shaky ground, but no one has ever really challenged them because the district voters reject outsiders anyway.


The thing is, they're not adding limits. They're not ignoring votes or preventing him from speaking or excluding electoral votes, they're just saying "Your name won't be on the ballot." People could still vote for that person, and that person could still win the state.
 
2017-09-07 11:03:58 AM  

grumpfuff: Geotpf: I'll take "Things That Are Unconstitutional" for $600, Alex.

On what grounds?

Seriously, no snark. I've heard this point before but never seen it explained.


I did, above.
 
2017-09-07 11:05:42 AM  

grumpfuff: SwiftFox: States adding requirements to the Constitutional ones for presidential office will never pass the first court hearing or any of the appeals.
Just like states adding term limits for their federal representatives was knocked down.  That puts requirements they live in their own districts on shaky ground, but no one has ever really challenged them because the district voters reject outsiders anyway.

The thing is, they're not adding limits. They're not ignoring votes or preventing him from speaking or excluding electoral votes, they're just saying "Your name won't be on the ballot." People could still vote for that person, and that person could still win the state.


There's already qualifications in-place to get added to the ballot, anyway - not everyone can do it as it is now.

It's just adding another one; attach your most recent tax return and you're good to go.
 
2017-09-07 11:06:01 AM  
This might become law, but not for long; once it makes it to a courtroom, it will bounce so many times it will look like something from the Mackinac Island stone-skipping competition.

See also: term limits for congresscritters.
 
2017-09-07 11:06:22 AM  

grumpfuff: SwiftFox: States adding requirements to the Constitutional ones for presidential office will never pass the first court hearing or any of the appeals.
Just like states adding term limits for their federal representatives was knocked down.  That puts requirements they live in their own districts on shaky ground, but no one has ever really challenged them because the district voters reject outsiders anyway.

The thing is, they're not adding limits. They're not ignoring votes or preventing him from speaking or excluding electoral votes, they're just saying "Your name won't be on the ballot." People could still vote for that person, and that person could still win the state.


They tried that argument  with the congesscritter/senators too.  Rejected with some contempt as a way around letting them run for the office.
 
2017-09-07 11:08:49 AM  

Mr.Uncle.Bill: or what?


Or Trump might not be able to get on the ballot in Mass., because he has such a good chance of winning there.
 
2017-09-07 11:09:00 AM  

BMulligan: Lost Thought 00: ginandbacon: SpaceyCat: If they made it for ALL candidates - local and national - I'd be ok with that.  This is just reactionary.

Given the fact that Massachusetts is so reliably Democratic that it was the only state that didn't vote for Nixon, I doubt the Republican base would have any problem with their candidate blowing it off...It's kind of toothless. Now if the Purple states passed something like this. That could make a difference.

Honestly I think it's mostly a test case to determine whether something of this nature will stand up to court scrutiny

Sadly, it probably would not. States may not impose qualifications for office beyond those set forth in the Constitution (minimum age and so forth). Technically this would not be an additional qualification for the office, just a requirement to gain ballot access, but functionally those are the same thing and I suspect that's how the Court would rule.


Sure they can, filing deadlines, number of signatures on their petition...lot's of things. But the release of personal information might be deemed an overreach.

somedude210: ginandbacon: SpaceyCat: If they made it for ALL candidates - local and national - I'd be ok with that.  This is just reactionary.

Given the fact that Massachusetts is so reliably Democratic that it was the only state that didn't vote for Nixon, I doubt the Republican base would have any problem with their candidate blowing it off...It's kind of toothless. Now if the Purple states passed something like this. That could make a difference.

but then the question arises of "are you blowing it off because you don't want to reveal your tax returns?" Which would obviously follow with "what are you hiding?" Yeah, you can just not be on the ballot but it'll get people asking questions


People were asking those questions during this last election and the people who voted for Trump didn't give a flying fark. This kind of thing could keep someone like him off the ballots in the states that matter. Which would matter. I don't like it instinctively, but faced with gerrymandering and the most intense voter suppression since Jim Crow, what tools are at our disposal?
 
2017-09-07 11:13:45 AM  
Interesting how it only goes back far enough that if Romney decides to run again he doesn't have to release back past what he already released.
 
Displayed 50 of 93 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report