California becomes latest state to reject presidential candidates who will not provide tax returns.

By |2019-05-03T09:25:42-08:00May 4th, 2019|Categories: News|Tags: , , , , |6 Comments

Some question if this is constitutional, but I think it is imperative.

Courtesy of The Hill:

The California state Senate on Thursday approved a bill to require candidates appearing on the presidential primary ballot — including President Trump — to release five years’ worth of income tax returns.

The measure was approved in a 27-10 vote, according to The Associated Press. California, for the first time, will be one of the first states to hold its presidential primary in the 2020 cycle.

The bill is a response to Trump’s insistence that he will not release his tax returns as presidential candidates traditionally have done, claiming he is under audit. If the bill becomes law and Trump does not release his returns, he may not appear on the California primary ballot.

“We believe that President Trump, if he truly doesn’t have anything to hide, should step up and release his tax returns,” said state Sen. Mike McGuire (D) who co-authored the bill, according to the AP.

All 10 Republicans in the state Senate voted against the bill’s passage.

Now Trump could not care less about California because they would not vote for him if he were the only candidate on the ballot, but California joins a growing list of other states who have also passed this law, and more are likely to follow. 

If this trend grows fast enough it might trigger a showdown in the Supreme Court, but will that really be resolved in time for the 2020 election?

About the Author:

This blog is dedicated to finding the truth, exposing the lies, and holding our politicians and leaders accountable when they fall far short of the promises that they have made to both my fellow Alaskans and the American people.

6 Comments

  1. anonymous May 4, 2019 at 6:21 am

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/04/democrats-executive-orders-2020-1301633

    “That’s basically the only way to govern now,” said Andrew Feldman, a Democratic strategist in Washington. “It’s kind of a way of life.”

    With executive orders, he said, “you can actually get a lot done, and as we’ve seen with the Trump administration, you can do a lot of harm.”

  2. anonymous May 4, 2019 at 6:39 am

    https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/04/a-1924-law-allows-democrats-to-directly-sue-to-get-trumps-tax-returns.html

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/04/donald-trump-tax-return-law-226790

    Mnuchin dismisses this explanation as contrived and contends that Neal’s real purpose is “to expose the president’s tax returns for the sake of exposure,” which Mnuchin claims is illegitimate.

    Neal is relying on a 1924 law (now found in 26 USC 6103(f)(1)), passed in the wake of scandals such as Teapot Dome, that explicitly authorizes the House Ways and Means Committee chair to obtain any taxpayer’s tax return information simply by asking for it in writing. The law is clear and direct, stating that the Treasury secretary “shall furnish” any information requested.

  3. Anonymous May 4, 2019 at 6:44 am

    https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/03/house-democrats-to-intervene-against-trump-lawsuit-over-bank-subpoenas.html

    “Trump, his children and his company asked U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos for a preliminary order blocking the banks from responding to the subpoenas while their lawsuit, which was filed on Monday, is pending.

    They said they will suffer “irreparable harm” without such an order, and that the subpoenas appeared to be intended to expose their confidential financial information “for the sake of exposure.”” OK

    https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/03/democrats-to-subpoena-deutsche-bank-witnesses-who-have-seen-trumps-tax-returns.html

    “If it comes to it, we could subpoena individuals with the bank who have seen the records to come testify.””

  4. Whatevs May 4, 2019 at 7:17 am

    Let’s keep the tax returns or not on ballot thing going, kids.

  5. puck May 4, 2019 at 2:44 pm

    he doesn’t want people to know that he is not as wealthy as he claims.

  6. Anonymous May 5, 2019 at 9:06 pm

    Oh, yeah. I knew we’d jump on this bandwagon. I’m just disappointed (again) that we weren’t the first.

Comments are closed.