No returns...no run w/ dem backing. Enough of that hiding business already.

Five years as a minimum seems pretty good.

Those not willing are clearly hiding something.

... is a candidate that I would never be able to trust. And if it's delayed, or late, or postponed, or rescheduled... or if there are excuses, and blame-laying, or diversions... or any other "technicality" being claimed that such a thing isn't possible (or isn't "allowed'') then that candidate is someone that I cannot trust, and someone that I'd view with the HIGHEST LEVEL OF SUSPICION.

No doubt he is hiding something.

Both Bush Presidents, Reagan, and Nixon were more transparent. Newt was more transparent. Really a sad statement.

http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

Only the constitution can set qualifications fit federal office.

Anyone who doesn't want to release tax returns can run for President -- just not as a Democrat.

There are a half dozen to dozen states who are adopting new ballot access rules that will require candidates to provide tax returns to get onto the ballot. The election law blogs are mixed on whether these provisions will survive challenge and I expect Trump to sue to block these laws. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=91865 I have no doubt that trump will cite the sanders example in these lawsuits.

Time will tell. I applaud the efforts of the states adopting these ballot access rules and hope that these states (all blue states) are successful in their efforts to defend these law. The litigation will be nasty enough without giving trump some additional arguments

You want backing than release five years minimum taxes.

My Virginia State Senator introduced that same type of legislation last January.

Instead of a statutory litmus test?

If you want to make tax returns a public service requirement why not go all in and have the entire working population of the United States have their income and tax returns available as a public disclosed database? Then it's all transparent for everyone.

some of that up, because of the possibility of conflict of interest.

It probably will by the time Trump is done, but that's not a good thing. Partisanship leads to some ugly excuse making. Jeeze.

are you stating you don't know or care that there is a difference between an elected official with this finger on a nuclear red button, that official who may be compromised financially, and the mail room clerk?

Having massive amounts of PAC soft money donated on behalf of any candidate and influencing elections doesn't matter in how an individual will be influenced to vote or create legislation?

It appears folks haven't paid attention to the current tax plan and the GOP's openly stating this plan of a corporate give away is because of corporate donors and financing GOP elected officials campaign.

You know, as far as mail room clerks go, Malcolm Forbes worked as a mail room clerk at Forbes as a young man. And I think Albert Einstein worked in a patent office as a clerk as well.

I'm certain there are mail clerks that are compromised. Definition:by doing things that do not agree with what you previously believed in or tried to achieve

Didn't Abraham Lincoln work as a mail clerk? (for those needing assistance this last question is rhetorical sarcasm).

I don't feel like wasting my time on all the "what if" extremes, out of control, 1,000,000:1 likelihood examples. you are trying to draw a parallel that just doen't exist in reality.

not directly making an answer to the thread topic and going for personal insult again for the second time,

Note how this isn't really civil discourse or discussion of how our political campaign system works.

Saying that Campaign finance influence is a conspiracy theory is laughable.

Check out the reality of the current tax plan the GOP are proposing indicates legislation is being influenced by campaign finances.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/359606-graham-financial-contributions-will-stop-if-gop-doesnt-pass-tax-reform

it's all so inane

It ought to be a federal requirement.

However a number of blue states are looking at adopting ballot access laws. California and New Jersey both passed such laws which were vetoed. The New Jersey law will be passed and signed once Christie is gone. Other blue states will be considering similar laws.

Getting these laws adopted in blue states may be the best that we can do at this time

It doesn't matter about tax returns being available for public consumption for public service.

If there is off shore tax sheltering happening it won't be reflected in the tax returns. Any act of hiding money isn't going to be easily found. How long did it take the Panama Papers to come to light?

Tax returns aren't a good indicator of conflict of interest in a political campaign or public service. Corruption and any form of conflict of interest comes from the money flow from campaign funds and PAC funding.

The real reason for the current GOP tax break for corporations isn't due to working directly for some corporate entity prior to being elected to congress. Hell, the GOP have openly admitted that the corporate donors are who they are doing it for. (campaign funding here).

Lindsey Graham said: "Republicans are literally out here warning each other that their big donors will stop writing checks if they don't do their bidding."

Trump's refusal to let his personal tax returns out has nothing to do with any hidden money or showing conflict of interest in my opinion. He's a braggart. And I think his fear of showing his tax returns is about his fluffing up his wealth through lies, when in actuality it is much much smaller than he claims it to be.

Trump has already shown he's in politics for self-enrichment of his businesses by his actions of staying at his own properties. But his singular actions shouldn't make political parties or the federal government jump on a slippery slope of requiring tax returns being made public in order to be a public servant.

Campaign money can be a serious conflict of interest motivation to create specific legislation and vote in specific ways. Again the new GOP tax cut proposals.

Always follow the money rule works on many levels. Do you really think the Democrat wins in Virginia was only because of the grass roots level? We spent 35 million campaign dollars in Virginia compared to the GOP 25 million dollars.

Campaign finance reform and undoing gerrymandering will level the voting field.

And you have no evidence for your assertion that DT's tax returns would not show conflict of interest. That would be the best way to demonstrate his use of the current tax structure and how his own taxes would be affected by the proposed bills.

I have no evidence to any assertion of the Trumps' tax returns. I have an opinion as to why a liar and braggart may not want them exposed. And there is no evidence his tax returns would show a conflict of interest either. It's both opinion, and speculation without the actual tax returns.

His use of the tax codes would be an indicator of a conflict of interest about how his taxes would be affected by the proposed tax cuts in what way?

It's painfully obvious that eliminating the inheritance tax will allow his private businesses which would be included in his estate to pass tax free to his children. How would any previous tax return show a conflict of interest to eliminate taxes on his estate after he dies so the estate and money just moves over freely?

Recommending the cutting of corporate taxes from the statutory rate of 39 percent to 20 percent is also painfully obvious to put more money to the bottom line of corporations including any Trump family owns or his corporate buddies own. How would tax returns show a conflict of interest there?

Please note the GOP is stating the tax cut proposals are a result of bending to do the will of their campaign financiers.

Isn't this tax form disclosure a form of Poll tax to run for office, and wouldn't that be the same as a poll tax to vote?

Voter registration poll tax requirements have been abolished, allowing people to vote. I would argue any requirement to publicly display tax returns to run for public office would fall under a kind of poll tax and stifle qualified individuals from running for public office.

There is statutory requirements regarding campaign finance reporting, which are a better indicator of conflict of interest in creating and voting on legislation. Who's donating and the resulting legislation proposals is also painfully obvious.

Oh yes, right to privacy question

Besides the items below, because his companies are personally held, their profits and losses would also show up on his personal returns -- and they could show emoluments violations.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/14/news/economy/trump-tax-returns/index.html

What he claimed in deductions: Trump's return would indicate how much he claimed in itemized deductions. More specifically on Schedule A and Form 8283, he would report how much money he donated to charity and which charities he chose.

How much he paid in taxes: The president has often bragged about paying as little tax as possible while at the same time boasting of his great wealth. That's raised concerns that the tax code may allow some of the very richest Americans to pay very little.

Whether and where he has foreign bank accounts: On Schedule B and related Form 8938, the public would learn what foreign accounts and trusts Trump has and in which countries.

Whether he paid taxes to foreign governments: If Trump claims a foreign tax credit, that means he paid tax to a foreign government and that would be subtracted from his U.S. income tax liability. On Form 1116 he'd have to reveal the countries where he paid those taxes and the type of income on which those taxes were due.

Concerns about paying as little taxes as possible and the current tax code allows wealthy Americans to pay very little?

There's a cat in Nebraska, Warren Buffet, that admits his secretary pays more in income taxes than he does based on the current tax code.

Every U.S. citizen should be working the current tax codes to the maximum to their personal benefit. The objective is to break even on tax withheld and tax paid. If the tax code allows you deductions to pay the lowest amount then it behooves people to do that, not just the "rich" people.

Foreign bank accounts and foreign taxes?

Once again I'm betting he hid income in shell companies that would be hard to track. And again the Panama Papers are revealing one of those shell companies. I bet that one might not show on any tax return.

Nope, sorry, campaign finance reform is the thing that needs to change, or all public elected officials can buy their way into office with the help of corporate mega donors.

I appreciate your viewpoints and discussion.

....have the qualifications for every job.

In order to be hired by a technical company as an engineer, one is required to have a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering. Does that mean that EVERYONE needs to get an Engineering Degree? No.

There are qualifications that must be met in order to get on a ballot and run for public office. At a certain level, let's say Congress and above, the qualification should be making one's income tax returns public.

And they think it’s full of a whole lot more information than it actually is.

Every time I ask someone what they actually think they will find I either get some copied and pasted response showing they don’t have a clue or answers showing they don’t have a clue.

decide what is and what is not important when they cast their vote - if they decide that a candidate's failure to disclose his or her tax returns isn't a deal breaker - well, that's their choice to make.

nomination. Those of you not completely invested in the party should do the right thing and stay out of its decision making.

I want this rule.

In fact, I will write my GOV in the morning. If it passes said candidate could not run in the one state that passes the rule. California should do the same and on a state level we can change this. I want 10 years tax returns.

a minimum of five years before the first Oresidential primary and been one consistently, or they are ineligible.

Most of the convention delegates are chosen in primaries. The rules for ballot access in each primary are set by each state (or other entity holding a primary). Are you suggesting that the DNC try to dictate to state legislatures who can appear on their ballots? Or when you write "There should also be a rule...." do you mean that several dozen state legislatures should all jump to attention and enact such a litmus test, to make sure that the voters don't have the option of nominating a candidate who doesn't meet with your approval?

I also ask how the rule would affect candidates from states that don't have partisan voter registration. Must the prospective candidate show a tattoo of a kicking donkey on his or her butt (along with an affidavit from the tattoo artist that it's at least five years old), or show other indicia of partisan loyalty (maybe donations to Democratic candidates in a certain minimum amount) that you find acceptably convincing?

The OP referred only to "party backing". I interpreted this to refer to money and other support, not ballot access. IOW, if the ignorant riffraff hoi polloi voters had the bad taste to nominate someone who didn't meet a standard set by the party oligarchs, then the oligarchs would be grudgingly forced to accept that person as the Democratic nominee (what with democracy and suchlike), but wouldn't spend any money or deploy any other party resources for him or her. That step, reprehensible as it would be in my mind, would at least be within their power. Declaring a prospective candidate "ineligible", however, would not be.

at the convention and cannot vote.

You can make it even fancier. All delegates automatically have instant run off voting information assigned to them based on first second and third vote getters for their state. If their first “choice” is ineligible the second place candidate in their state/district gets the vote.

In practice, a non sanctioned candidate wouldn’t fare very well. It’s not easy for instance for someone with zero chance of getting a nomination per the rules to raise money to try to get delegates for said nomination. Most voters and people who would donate money would support someone else.

Consider a state where the GOP has the "trifecta" of control of both legislative chambers and the governorship. (I think Florida and Ohio are currently in this category, and probably others. It's certain that some states will still be under total Republican control after the midterms, and it's likely that some swing states will be.) The Republicans would be delighted to make sure that a candidate who doesn't meet the DNC's requirements would nevertheless be listed on the ballot for the Democratic primary. They'd change the law if they had to.

Then what? With the Democratic Party's proportionality rules, a credible candidate has a good chance of getting at least some delegates even if he or she loses the primary. Then those delegates get to the convention and the party refuses to seat them or prohibits them from voting they want (and the way the voters in the Democratic primary instructed them). Do you see anything wrong with this scenario? I certainly do. The Republicans would be delighted to spend the fall campaign pointing out that the undemocratic "Democrat Party" (as they would see) wouldn't let the people of the great state of Florida or wherever have their voices heard in the selection of the nominee. Even in a state like California or Texas, they'd throw this in the faces of Democrats in close downticket races.

The example of 2008 is not encouraging. There was a clear violation of Democratic Party rules in the scheduling of the Florida and Michigan primaries. It was clear under the rules that the delegates thus selected were therefore not to be seated. In the end, they actually were seated. The Democratic Party didn't want to exclude democratically elected delegates. If, instead of excluding an entire state delegation, the party were to try to admit some delegates and exclude others, because the DNC had decided that its own views as to candidates' qualifications should outweigh those of the voters, the blowback would be even greater.

Fortunately, the hatred of Bernie Sanders on DU -- "hatred" is not too strong a word, in my view -- is not representative of the party as a whole. To the party leaders who care more about winning the election than in carrying on a vendetta, it will be perfectly obvious that trying to target Bernie, and doing so by threatening to override a fair and free election, would be a disaster for November. This plan will continue to be championed by some people on DU but will get no traction out in the real world.

Voters won’t support someone who per the rules can’t get the nomination.

That ends the story.

Multiple errors in your stance:

1. You ignore the point about 2008. Just because, at the time of the primary, the rule says that some or all of the delegates won't be seated, doesn't mean that, at the time of the convention, they won't actually be seated. In 2008 the delegates were seated. Therefore, many voters will (with considerable justification) reject your facile assumption that the candidate can't be nominated.

2. Even among those who accept that assumption, quite a few will be in a mood to give the finger to the establishment. Note that candidates in 2016 with an anti-establishment aura (Sanders and Trump) did better than the chattering classes had expected.

3. Even aside from the genuine Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, there are many states in which Republicans and Republican-leaning independents can vote in a Democratic primary. In many others, if they see that there's no real contest on the GOP side (the incumbent, be it Trump or Pence, a shoo-in for the nomination), they could switch their registrations in time. They'd be happy to cast a mischief-making vote for a candidate who ticks off the DNC pooh bahs.

4. Even if you were right that such a DNC diktat would clear the field of the "undesirables", it would still be a huge black eye for the party. The Republicans would be happy to appeal to independents by saying, "Our party is a big tent that WELCOMES independents!"

For all these reasons, the practical politicians at the DNC will easily outvote the handful of hotheads who'll still be stuck on refighting 2016 and who'll howl for vengeance against Bernie.

Oh, wait, I just re-read your post and saw, "That ends the story." I guess everything I wrote must be wrong because you've pronounced it so.

Sarcasm aside, "That ends the story," as a wrap-up to a post about an election that's almost three years away, is likely to be wrong more often than not. I obviously consider my prediction more probable than yours but I would never be so absolute about it. A lot can happen between now and then.

controls were not in place.

If you want the benefits of an organization, act like it. It's that simple.

I remember it very differently than you represent it. The party re-apportioned delegates from MI and FL over the objections of the representatives of one of the candidates before seating them.

The candidate who had legally elected delegates removed from her tally and given to her opponent decided not to to fight the ruling in the interest of party unity. Democrats went on to win that election.

Let the self-interested do what they do best: take care of themselves. Don't expect organizations that they disdain to help them in those efforts.

As I said to that person, if you want the benefits that an organization has to offer, act like it and don't attack and trash that organization and then expect them to help you.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee does not have the final word. That's why I wrote, "In the end, [the delegates] actually were seated." Here's more detail, from this CNN report from a few months after the RBC meeting:

The whole brouhaha illustrates my point that it's not easy for the national party to try to overrule state legislatures, because the national party's only tool -- not seating convention delegates -- generates so much blowback. Whichever candidate would benefit from seating the delegates can position himself or herself as the champion of the popular will. The Associated Press reported on such developments in 2008 in "Clinton wants Florida, Michigan delegates to Democratic convention reinstated":



What made the difference in 2008 was that, by the time of the convention, Obama had enough of a lead that he could go along with Clinton's position, so the delegates were seated. From Clinton's comments earlier in the year, however, you can see how an attempt to exclude any state(s) can come under fire.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Clinton conceded in early June. Uncommitted super delegates were comfortable at that point to throw their support to Senator Obama. At the convention, Senator Clinton released her delegates and called for the nomination of her opponent early in the vote count in a show of unity. (That's why New York voted so early in the order.)

Senator Clinton never fought the DNC RBC ruling that MI's 55 unpledged delegates be awarded to Senator Obama. Harold Ickes Jr. wanted to take that fight to the Credentials Committee and the convention floor.

In the interest of what was best for the country at large, Senator Clinton overruled him, conceded, and immediately began campaigning with and for the presumed nominee.

The issue here isn't deciding whether Hillary Clinton acted nobly and will go to Heaven when she dies. I have no interest in refighting the 2008 primary. The issue here is the practicality of stevenleser's recommendation in #27 that the DNC abandon its current rule that requires neutrality among the candidates, and instead pick one or more candidates as favored and the rest as "non-sanctioned" (based on tax disclosure, length of party membership, and/or whatever other criteria might tempt the DNC members to substitute their judgment for that of the voters).

If you believe, as I do, that the DNC doesn't have the power to bar a "non-sanctioned" candidate from the ballots in the primaries, then the only way it could enforce its choice would be at the convention. It could refuse to seat the delegates pledged to a candidate who didn't have the DNC's approval, or it could prohibit them from voting for the candidate of their choice (see #27).

Such a plan would be unfair, undemocratic, and harmful to the eventual nominee's chances in November. Putting aside those objections, however, my point in this context is that it's impractical. The lesson of 2008 is that the drastic step of refusing to seat elected delegates generates too much blowback.

The Ickes clip illustrates this. Michigan had violated the DNC's rules for primary scheduling. The DNC decreed that no Michigan delegates would be seated. Obama took his name off the ballot, Clinton left hers on, and so of course she won. Then we saw Ickes condemning the "hijacking" of delegates, talking about "fundamental" principles, and alluding several times to "600,000 Michigan voters" who should not be disenfranchised. That's precisely the kind of attack that I was envisioning.

The upshot was as I stated: At the convention, the DNC backed down and seated full delegate slates from Michigan (and from Florida, similarly situated). Your RealClearPolitics link refers to those two states with an asterisked footnote "Delegates After DNC Penalty". Therefore, although I don't see a date on the page, we know that it was before the convention, because the convention lifted the penalty. The Democratic Party had a rule, clearly stated well in advance of the scheduling of the primaries, that no delegates would be seated from any state that jumped the gun. Michigan and Florida jumped the gun -- but when push came to shove, the party backed down and imposed no penalty on those states.

So my statement was completely accurate.

At the time convention, those involved in the nomination process (including many delegates) knew exactly what was going to happen and at what point in the roll call it would occur. Because the delegate count was to be stopped long before FL or MI were called, the questions concerning those delegates were what lawyers call "moot".

The Ickes clip illustrates justified umbrage at the reclassification of designated status delegates to a different status by will of a committee. This Democrat is glad that he has been renamed to the DNC RBC. His is a voice of fairness and reason.

Revisionism won't work here. Some of us remember because we participated in real time in the actual events.

You write:

That's not true. Those states were called and they voted.

The roll call for the nomination for President proceeded through the states in alphabetical order, as usual, but with a bit of theater that I assume was prearranged. You'll find a complete transcript of the proceedings here.

The Secretary of the Convention called the roll. When she reached Florida, the state's Democratic Party Chairwoman proclaimed that "we believe in one vote for one person" -- an obvious though inaccurate dig at the Democratic Party rules -- and then cast the state's full complement of votes -- because the penalty prescribed by the rules had been rescinded.

When the Secretary reached Illinois, Illinois passed.

When the Secretary reached Michigan, it also cast its full complement of votes.

She continued on through the roll. New Mexico was the state immediately before New York. New Mexico, instead of voting, yielded to Illinois. Illinois then yielded to New York. The spokesperson for New York introduced Hillary, and she moved that Obama be nominated by acclamation.

So, no, the delegate count was not "stopped long before FL or MI were called...." They were called and they voted. That's because, three days before the vote for the presidential nomination, the party had backed down completely from the attempt to penalize them. See "Full voting rights restored to Florida and Michigan".

Furthermore, the Florida and Michigan delegations, at full strength (not half a vote each as per the decision at the RBC meeting that you attended) and with no penalty for having defied the DNC, were also able to vote on the platform and all other matters that came before the Convention.

That illustrates my point that the threat to refuse to seat delegates is a pretty blunt instrument and, as a practical matter, is hard for the party to wield. Even the earlier RBC decision (seat them but with half a vote each) had been a significant back-pedaling from the rule that the party had originally promulgated.

There's a side issue about what you call "the reclassification of designated status delegates" that arose from the changing of the rules after the Michigan primary had been held. It's completely unrelated to my point about the blowback when the party tries to refuse to seat delegates for one reason or another. Since you raise it, though, I'll elaborate in case anyone cares.

At the time of the 2008 Michigan primary, the rule had been that no delegates would be seated. The DNC was countering the tendency of states to leap-frog each other to go earlier and have more influence, because the DNC didn't want the entire primary season to be crammed into a few weeks. The scheduling of the Michigan primary on January 15 violated the rule.

In support of the DNC's objective, and relying on the rule that no delegates would be seated because of the violation, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards removed their names from the Michigan primary ballot. Hillary Clinton did not, so of course she won.

Obama supporters had been told that, unable to vote for Obama directly, they should vote for the "Uncommitted" slate. The vote had been: Clinton 55%, Uncommitted 40%.

Thereafter, when the rules were retroactively changed to seat Michigan delegates after all, it was recognized that it would be unfair to Obama to give him zero delegates from the state. It was further recognized that his voters had voted Uncommitted. Accordingly, in the delegation that was ultimately seated, Obama was given pledged delegates in proportion to the Uncommitted vote.

That wasn't a perfect solution, because a handful of the Michiganders voting for Uncommitted might have actually preferred Uncommitted. Nevertheless, short of holding a complete revote of the primary (a possibility that was actually being explored for a while), this was the most sensible way for the party to deal with the post-primary change in the rules. This Democrat is glad that the party rejected Ickes's expressed umbrage and instead acted fairly.

when Senator Obama suggested that full votes be restored to FL and MI in August 2008 and the Credentials Committee agreed, the issue was already moot.

While it was a meaningful gesture of conciliation by the Obama camp and assuaged the delegates of the voters of FL and MI who felt disenfranchised, it was widely known that it would have no impact on the outcome of the roll call vote and give the Credentials Committee a way out of a possibly precedent-setting jam. When Senator Clinton released her delegates (telling them that she had cast her own ballot for Senator Obama) and then later moved for nomination by acclamation from the floor, it was a remarkable moment for party unity.

We saw genuine leadership on many levels and from many people in the run up to Denver and at the convention itself. Facile, revisionist narratives will never trump actual history.

You refer to "a possibly precedent-setting jam." The precedent that might have been set was that, when the DNC issues rules and states that the penalty for violation will be that delegates won't be seated, the rule will be enforced and the delegates not seated.

The precedent that was actually set was that, when the DNC issues rules and states that the penalty for violation will be that delegates won't be seated, the rule will be set aside retroactively, and the delegates will seated with no penalty.

Bear in mind that even the RBC half-a-vote solution back in May that you initially referred was itself a significant retreat from the position of full enforcement of the rules.

You write, "Facile, revisionist narratives will never trump actual history." With that I fully agree. The actual history of 2008 is that the Florida and Michigan delegations were seated at full strength, one vote apiece, even though the state legislatures blatantly defied an explicit DNC rule. Whether you consider that to be an example of "genuine leadership" is relevant to a history of 2008 but irrelevant to a prediction about 2020. My point remains that one must be dubious of any plan for 2020 that relies on the DNC promulgating and adhering to a rule calling for elected delegates to be barred from the convention.

because Democrats worked together in the best interest of the country.

There is a body of law dealing with ballot access and there are separate party rules/policies that are applicable in the real world. For example, I had fun updating the Victory Counsel program memorandum on how to get Hillary Clinton on the ballot for the Texas primary. It helped that I am friends with the person at the Texas Democratic Party in charge of this process. The state party and the DNC party could adopt rules as to who qualifies as a candidate and there are strong reasons why the party should take a strong position on requiring the release of tax returns.

Democratic members of Congress has repeatedly demanded that Trump release his tax returns and have forced votes on this issue https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-democrats-petition-for-president-trumps-tax-returns/ It is impossible to imagine the party allowing a nominee to get on the ballot if that nominee does not release their tax returns. Senator Wyden has proposed a federal law to require release of tax returns that reflects the views of most democrats https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/03/blue-state-lawmakers-want-to-keep-trump-off-2020-ballot-unless-he-releases-tax-returns/?utm_term=.d1409fba86aa

Second, states each have the right to adopt rules as to ballot access. These laws tend to favor the two national parties. Several states are proposing laws that would require a candidate to release their tax returns to get onto the ballot https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/03/blue-state-lawmakers-want-to-keep-trump-off-2020-ballot-unless-he-releases-tax-returns/?utm_term=.d1409fba86aa


These states are all blue states and I doubt that anyone can win the Democratic nomination without being on the ballots in these states. I personally think that these laws are valid

I see nothing wrong with various deep blue states, the Democratic Party or multiple state parties adopting rules requiring that candidates to provide their tax returns. I cannot imagine the party nominating anyone who does not release their tax returns. Such a nomination would concede a key issue against trump and mean that the actions taken by House Democrats to force votes on the release of Trump's tax returns were wasted efforts.

Delegates are not elected during the primary process in most states. The primary merely determines the allocations of delegates and the actual delegates are selected at the state's convention. I understand that there are a few states that have slates on the ballot but under party rules these slates can be changed by the campaign under the vetting rules. I was a delegate for Hillary Clinton to the national convention. Texas was required to drop the Texas two step and so all delegates were allocated at the state convention based on primary results. Each state senate district got an allocation of delegates divided by Clinton and Sanders to elect. My Senate District was entitled to three Clinton delegates and Sanders was entitled to one delegate.

To be a delegate, you had to file with the state party back in March and basically sign an agreement to support the nominee of the party. Each person running to be a delegate then campaigned to be elected by their senate district caucus. At the same time each candidate/campaign had the right to vet and approve their delegates. I was on the committee that vetted the Clinton delegates in my senate district. Each candidate has absolute approval rights over their delegates. We had one Sanders delegate removed and replaced because he would not state that he hated Hillary Clinton. It was really ugly

There were a group of delegates selected by the convention as a whole who were nominated by each candidate. Most of these delegates came from a pool of elected officials who were also vetted by each campaign.

Each delegate technically has the right to vote for the nominee of their choice. Each candidate can remove and replace a delegate subject to certain rules. Again, the Clinton campaign vetted their delegates carefully. In the case of the Clinton delegates, the people selected were all loyal members of the Democratic Party who were not going to vote for anyone other than Hillary Clinton.

Again, these rules all require that each candidate be on the ballot for the primary and the party or the state could add requirements for candidate to get onto the ballot.

I can not imagine the party letting a candidate on the ballot if they refuse to provide tax returns given the fact that this will be a major issue if Trump survives until 2020,

The number of delegates to which each candidate is entitled depends on the primary results, so the question doesn't even arise until after the ballot for the primary has been set, presumably by the state Board of Elections or the equivalent. My inquiry concerns the process of populating the primary ballot.

You write:

Does that mean that there are "rules" set by the government of Texas that allow the party to add requirements? Your phrasing suggests to me something like this: The state has requirements for petition signatures and filing fees and whatever; people who want to be on the primary ballot submit their papers; the state compiles a list of those who've qualified; it then sends that list for vetting to the state party committe, and the state strikes from the ballot any candidate who, according to the state party, didn't meet the party's requirements. Is that the law? If so, my guess is that Texas is very unusual in that respect.

I certainly agree that a state would have the power to delegate to a state party some or all of the process of determining who gets included on the primary ballot. In the absence of such a state law, however, the state party committee and the DNC could scream and rant all they wanted, and a disfavored candidate would still appear on the primary ballot.

The state party under the First Amendment (freedom of association) has the right to determine who are members of the party and has the right to limit candidates access to the ballot if they want. The same analysis that doomed the ill-conceived and rather stupid DNC fraud lawsuit applies to other party rules. The party has an associational right to determine who is eligible to represent the party just as the Boy Scouts of America (the "BSA) had the right to limit membership under the Dale case (this is a SCOTUS case that held that the BSA could deny membership and leadership roles to members of the LGBT community). It took years of hard work in the real world to get the BSA to change these rules.

Here is another example. I am a precinct chair (this is an elected leadership role in the party) and under party rules I can be removed if I vote in the GOP primary. I have the legal right to vote in either primary under Texas law but the party has the right to remove me as a leader of the party if I vote in the GOP primary. While it is possible under party rules to restrict access to the ballot, I think that changes to the ballot access state laws are more likely.

The more likely action that will be taken will be changes to the ballot access laws or statutes adopted by state governments in blue states such as New York and Maryland that will limit ballot access as a matter of state law to candidates who have released tax returns. California passed such a bill but it was vetoed by Gov. Brown. Other blue states will likely adopt such ballot access laws. You may want to read the article cited in the prior posts and I could provide you links to some discussions on the legal blogs on this topic. Trump will no doubt challenge these ballot access laws and it would be a horrible example for anyone running for the Democratic nomination to support trump in this litigation. The Texas legislature will not be adopting these rules but more than one blue state will likely adopt such a ballot access law. If Governor Brown retires before the 2020 cycle, I suspect that California will consider passing such a law again.

There is actually a couple of treatises on ballot access law and one of the authors of one of these treatises was part of the Victory Counsel program (the Clinton legal team). These are legal issues and I am surprised that a member of the bar is not familiar with these concepts.

Sorry to wander off topic but, If you have access to vote either party in the primary why wouldn't you vote for the weakest GOP candidate in the primary to try to bolster the Democrat candidates chances of victory?

If you are a precinct chair in the Democratic party and you vote in the GOP primary you may be removed.

Here is a thread from a while back when a DU member had a Sanders supporter on his radio show and that sanders supporter spewed hate speech against Clinton and told people that he was voting for Stein. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029360137 the Harris county Democratic Party rejected this person as a precinct chair and this stein/sanders supporter whined about Democrats being mean to him. This process was occurring after the March primary where precinct chairs are normally elected. The Harris County Democratic was correct in rejecting his application to be a precinct chair. If this person had run for office and got elected, he would have been removed. The Harris County Party was correct in rejecting this person as a precinct chair.

Poll watchers can be appointed by the county parties. Poll watchers are allowed to enter the polling location and observe the election process. I trained 200+ poll watchers for the 2016 election and we vetted each and every poll watcher. These poll watchers represented the party and we would not certify anyone who had voted in the GOP primaries. Again, the party has the right to set standards for its leaders and agents.

Under applicable law, the party had the right to set standards for being a member and a leader. The party also has the right to adopt rules to exclude candidates. To date, the Texas Democratic Party has not adopted such rules but such rules would be legal. As a delegate to the national convention, I signed a document where I promised to support and vote for the nominee of the Party. That agreement may not have been enforceable but as a person of honor, I supported the Democratic Party and the party's nominee.

If you have a democrat office holder and no primary for them, and the GOP have two candidates in a primary it would make sense to vote for the weaker GOP in the primary to try to get the advantage in the general election without the dogma of the rule.

Helping the opponent lose by opposition hit pieces in the general or targeting the weakest link to get through the primary to the general is pretty much the same thing: getting the democrat elected in the primary.

ETA: the objective is to get democrats elected not be a precinct policy wonk isn't it?

A Republican ran unopposed in that party's primary, but a second Republican ran against the Democratic candidate in the Democratic primary. If my state did not have closed primaries, there is a strong possibility that we would have had two Republican candidates for county executive in the November election.

If you want voice in who will represent the party in a GE, join the party. There are enough problems with elections in this country without additional exploitation of resources and the gaming of rules.

The Democratic Party should not be adopting such tactics. In any event the State Party has the right to select its leaders and an idiot who goes on radio to encourage people to vote for Jill Stein should not be a leader.

I asked a fairly straightforward question about your description of the Texas process:

Having re-read your post I don't see a clear answer. It's a matter of Texas law. I'm a lawyer but I'm not admitted in Texas.

What I do know is that your generalizations about the Democratic Party embody two major errors. First, you write:



Your analogy to the Boy Scouts later in that paragraph is mistaken because the Boy Scouts don't use the mechanisms of government to conduct party primaries. (I've limited my comments in this thread to primaries because I think it probable that the party committees have greater control over caucuses, where there's arguably no state action.) Your statement appears to echo the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U. S. 45 (1935), which held that the Democratic Party could do whatever it wanted in its primaries (rejecting the argument that "the [party] committee's action barring negroes from the party primaries was state action prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment" ). Thereafter, however, the Court recognized that a political party does not have the same rights of association as a private group like the Boy Scouts. In Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), the Court expressly overruled Grovey and held that the whites-only primary was unconstitutional. Because the primary is state action, it seems to me that, under the Constitution, a state may conduct a primary without regard to the wishes of the party (which I think is what most states do), or it may give the party veto power over candidates on any basis that doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment. So I repeat my question: Does Texas have a law that gives the Democratic Party that kind of veto power?

Second, you write:



The analysis in that decision was that there was no federal jurisdiction. I know that you want to keep reading that decision as ratifying the right of the Democratic Party to do any goddamn thing it pleases in its nominating process, but Judge Zloch expressly rejected that view, holding instead that the party is constrained by its own promulgated rules. Furthermore, because his holding was solely jurisdictional, he dismissed the suit without prejudice. In any event, the issue was different because the DNC's violation of its neutrality rule didn't involve state action. A primary run by the state at taxpayer expense is state action (as held in Smith v. Allwright). If the DNC were to repeal its neutrality rule, it would presumably be free to favor some candidates over others in its own actions (public statements, debate schedules, planting smear stories, etc.), but that wouldn't give it any control over ballot access. It would have control over ballot access only to the extent that a state statute conferred such control.

So, again, I repeat my question: Does Texas have a law that gives the Democratic Party that kind of control?

If you read the material posted, your questions would be answered. The issue raised in the OP is whether the party should adopt rules to deny access on the ballot to a candidate who refuses to provide their tax returns. Trump's refusal to release his returns is a real issue and I believe that the party should adopt such a rule. In addition, I note that several states are considering laws that would require a candidate to release tax returns to get on the ballot.

I strongly disagree with your analysis of the DNC fraud case. https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/tedious-legal-analysis-of-the-decision-in-the-fraud-suit-against-the-dnc/ However that case is not an issue here. I am happy that this case was dismissed and I am amused that the lawyer behind this case is trying to sell books to the JPR posters.

Your citation of the old Whites Only primary cases is not relevant to the issues. These case addressed who could vote in a primary and it was appropriate to strike down the old whites only primary system. The issue addressed in the OP is whether the party can sanction or deny access to a candidate who supports trump's policy of hiding their tax returns.

The party has the power to sanction leaders and candidates who violate party policy. Texas CD 22 is a heavily gerrymandered district that is impossible to win by a Democratic candidate. Heck in 2016, a decent but underfunded Democrat barely broke 40% in that race even though a major portion of the district voted for Hillary Clinton. In 2010 and 2012, a LaRouche supporter named Kesha Rogers won the Democratic primary for CD 22. Kesha is a LaRouche supporter and he platform was the impeachment of President Obama and the immediate colonization of Mars. The Texas Democratic Party took strong actions against Kesha including denying her access to the Texas Democratic Party voter database. http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2010/03/texas-democratic-party-cuts-ties-with-rogers/

I saw Kesha being escorted out of the 2012 Texas state convention and I understand that she was removed more than once. The party can easily apply the above sanction to a candidate who will not release their tax returns or otherwise take steps to support Trump's policy of hiding tax returns. Cutting a candidate off from the VAN and access to voter information would be an appropriate sanction.

Again, I note that you do not want to talk about state ballot access laws. Texas will not be adopting any laws that may affect trump but California passed such a law (that was vetoed by Governor Brown). Other deep blue states are considering this laws and I expect that following the 2018 mid terms you will see more than one blue state adopt such a law. Trump will sue to invalidate these laws and it would be sad to see a candidate running for the Democratic nomination support trump in such litigation.

I have been on the state party rules committee and this thread has inspired me to draft and propose a rule for the Texas Democratic Party that would allow the Chairman of the party to deny access to the data base to any candidate who violates state party rules of policies. The 2018 convention will be in Fort Worth and being stuck in the rules committee pushing this rule will make Fort Wroth bearable. This sanction would be appropriate for any candidate for the nomination who support trump's policy of not disclosing their tax returns.

My point has, I think, been fairly clear. The party decides who gets its own resources (data base, public statements, party offices, whatever). The state government decides who gets on the primary ballot.

You write, "Again, I note that you do not want to talk about state ballot access laws." That's an absolutely incredible statement. I have been repeatedly asking for information about state ballot access laws.

In particular, there appears to be a widespread assumption on DU that it's the DNC, rather than each state government, that decides who can appear on the Democratic primary ballot. I believe that assumption to be incorrect. So far, no one, including you, has provided any information about state ballot access laws that supports the claim.

Can the party remove LaRoucheites or other people from a party convention that's run by the party? Yes. Can the party remove people from the ballot in a public primary that's run by the state? No, unless the state's law either embodies a particular rule or delegates veto power to some party entity.

By that standard, it seems to me that any state could, by statute, decree that, in addition to whatever requirements now exist (like signatures and filing fees), appearance on the primary ballot would also require public release of tax returns. Adding a further condition of five years' party membership (the subject of this subthread, beginning with #20) might be more problematic. I could see a possible freedom-of-association argument. This gets back to the Smith v. Allwright point that a political party isn't exactly like the Boy Scouts or other private organization. As you said, the Supreme Court held that the Boy Scouts could exclude LGBT leaders, but I'm confident that the Democratic Party could not by party rule exclude LGBT candidates from the Democratic primaries. Any such rule would be ineffective unless adopted by the state government. (Even then it would probably be unconstitutional under Smith v. Allwright, but the point here is that, regardless of what party officials said, the LGBT candidates could appear on the primary ballot as long as they complied with state law.)

AFAIK the most restrictive primary law in the country is New York's. People who changed their registration to Democratic from something else the day after the first Democratic debate in October 2015 were ineligible to vote for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders the next April because they hadn't been Democrats long enough. In fact, they couldn't even vote in the state legislative primaries in September, eleven months after they switched, for the same reason. With regard to appearing on the ballot, a candidate in a primary for any office other than President must either be a registered member of the party or must get the consent of the party in whose primary he or she wants to run. For the Presidency, the complication is that the voters don't choose the nominee; they choose delegates. IIRC (haven't looked at this law in years), would-be delegates must themselves be party members but don't need to be pledged to a party member. The state could amend its law, although it would then have to account for the situation of candidates from other states that don't have partisan registration. (A law that effectively barred all Vermonters from running would not be constitutional.) This conforms to the general point that eligibility for the primary ballot is determined by state law, not by party rules.

In #34 you attempted to support your position by referring to the decision in the DNC fraud lawsuit. I pointed out that the decision does not support your position, and I'm glad you now agree that "that case is not an issue here."

First, your claims about the DNC lawsuit are wrong. The court dismissed this lawsuit for valid reasons that you either did not understand or ignored. For example, most litigators should know that you can file class actions in federal court under diversity jurisdiction if you satisfy certain simple pleading requirements. If lack of diversity was the sole reason for dismissal, the court could have ask the idiot attorney who filed this case to correct this defect by a simple change to the pleadings. Again, I strongly disagreed with your analysis of this ruling
https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/tedious-legal-analysis-of-the-decision-in-the-fraud-suit-against-the-dnc/

As to ballot access law, your questions were answered if you read the materials posted. However let me help. Your JPR profile claims that you are from New Jersey. You do know that the New Jersey legislature passed a ballot access law which required the disclosure of tax returns. This bill was vetoed by Christie. https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2017/03/christie-poised-to-do-trump-a-favor-by-vetoing-nj-tax-return-requirement-110599

Once Christie is gone, this law will be passed and signed

I note that California also adopted such a law that was vetoed. Mass. may be adopting a similar law by voting on this in the 2018 general http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-bc-ma--presidential-candidates-tax-returns-20170906-story.html


Come 2020, there will be likely be several such laws adopted in blue states. Trump will sue to invalidate these laws and there will be a mass revolt if any democratic candidate joined trump in fighting these laws.

I volunteer in the real world on voter protection issues and have been in charge of war rooms for several races. This is not a hard area of the law. Here is a rather basic law review article that may explain the concepts and discusses the case where ballot access laws that limited a congressman to three terms and a Senator to two terms were held invalid. https://www.uclalawreview.org/candidate-disclosure-ballot-access-bills-novel-questions-voting-disclosure/ This concept is important


I agree with the conclusion of this law review article

I note your concerns about New York closed primary rules. I would love to see Texas close its primary and adopt party registration requirements. The Texas GOP likes the current system but there is hope that we can make changes when Texas turn blue (and Texas will turn blue).

The question that I have for you is what should the reaction be if a candidate for the Democratic nomination joins trump in fighting these ballot access rules? Could you support a candidate who is wiling to adopt trump's positions on anything? I suspect that many members of the Democratic party would not be happy to support a candidate who is working with trump on this issue.

As for me, I will draft and proposed some rules for the Texas Democratic Party that will make if very difficult for a candidate to run in Texas without providing their tax returns. I expect to have a fun time at the 2018 state convention.

As I've made clear, my question concerns the assumption being made about the powers of party committees. Both the OP (re tax returns) and the beginning of this subthread in #20 (about party membership) appear to assume that the DNC and/or a state party organization could impose such a requirement and thereby prevent a disfavored candidate from appearing on the primary ballot. I believe that assumption to be false.

As a general rule, eligibility for a primary ballot is determined by state law, not by any party entity. It's conceivable that a state could specifically delegate such authority to a party committee, or at least give the party veto power (i.e., refuse access to the primary ballot to a candidate who met all the statutory requirements of petition signatures and the like but who didn't meet an additional requirement set by the party). Without the support of the state legislature, however, no party entity could bar a candidate from the ballot based on tax returns or party membership or anything else.

You respond with information about state laws (actual or proposed) concerning ballot access in New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts. Yes, I was aware that state law determines eligibility to run for office (duh). That tells me nothing about any basis for any alleged veto power in the hands of any party committee. Therefore, I continue to believe that there is no such power.

New York, as I noted, presents the opposite case. Every candidate who meets the statutory requirements can appear on the primary ballot regardless of what any party committee says. In certain cases, however, a candidate not meeting all the requirements can nevertheless be allowed on the ballot with the party's consent. That's obviously different from empowering a party to declare a candidate ineligible.

As for the DNC fraud lawsuit, you're apparently keen to refute the contention that "lack of diversity was the sole reason for dismissal". You should go take that up with someone who actually made that contention. It's amusing that you link to my actual post at https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/tedious-legal-analysis-of-the-decision-in-the-fraud-suit-against-the-dnc/ -- amusing because a simple text search shows that I didn't even use the word "diversity" in that post.

A brief note for the nonlawyers: Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning that a court will dismiss a case, even if it's meritorious, if it doesn't meet the statutory requirements for being heard in federal court. This set of requirements is referred to as subject-matter jurisdiction. In this context, "diversity" means that the plaintiff and the defendant are from different states. A lack of diversity is one of the issues that sometimes defeats subject-matter jurisdiction. It's not the only one, though. There are cases where complete diversity is present but there's no subject-matter jurisdiction, and there are cases where there's no diversity but there is subject-matter jurisdiction.

In the DNC case, Judge Zloch addressed diversity but also numerous other subjects. In my JPR post that you link, I wasn't trying to re-brief the whole case. Instead, my goal was to explain some points that I thought would be of particular interest to most readers. That's why, far from contending that "lack of diversity was the sole reason for dismissal", I omitted that issue entirely.

Incidentally, anyone who wants to read the full decision can find it here: http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/62-D.E.-62-Ord-of-Dismissal-8-25-17.pdf

I know that the plaintiffs have filed an appeal. As I said in my JPR post, however, I don’t think an appeal has much chance of succeeding.

You write:

You've declined to answer my question about Texas law, so I don't think I owe you anything, but I'll answer anyway. The second question is easy: Yes, I would support a candidate who met my other criteria, even if that candidate adopted Trump's position on something. I did so a year ago, when I voted for Hillary Clinton after she had adopted Trump's position on the TPP. Trump doesn't possess reverse infallibility.

On the first question, I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I think candidates should disclose tax returns. On the other hand, I believe in democracy, so I think that voters should have the final say, even if they make choices with which I disagree.

An example is the Constitution's requirement that the President be a natural-born citizen. The Obama birther nutjobs were correct in saying that that requirement is in the Constitution. For my part, I don't think it should be. For example, Jennifer Granholm was born in Canada, came to the United States at the age of two, and went on to be elected Governor of Michigan. There's no good reason to render her ineligible to be President. This is what happens when people start writing their personal preferences into the law. The Constitution was drafted when the country's independence was still very new. I assume the Framers were especially touchy about foreigners, so they embodied that attitude in the Constitution and now we're stuck with it. I'd prefer to see the requirement repealed. Then anyone who thinks that Granholm's Canadian birth is a reason to vote against her can make that case to the voters.

The tax-return thing isn't a litmus test for me. If the general election had been among Sanders as the Democratic nominee (hypothetically not disclosing returns) and Cruz, Johnson, and Stein (all hypothetically disclosing returns), I would have voted for Sanders.

requiring any public office holder to declare themselves for the party as a holder of that office.

I'm trying to delineate the powers of party committees (state or national) as opposed to the powers of state legislatures. My example of New York illustrates that the state legislature has the power to restrict inclusion on a party primary ballot to members of the party. Neither the DNC nor any state party committee, however, has the power to restrict eligibility for public office, based on party membership or any other criterion.

If you are running for President, you need the national party. So follow the national party rules. States can do their own things, I guess, but I'd like to see a general requirement that people running as a Democrat for a office who already are in an elected office declare themselves as a Democrat.

I'm not suggesting this as a requirement for office, but for party support. The whole POINT of parties is the right of free association.

Would you argue that the party should ignore the will of the voters, and refuse to support a duly chosen nominee because he or she didn't meet the standard that you personally find appropriate?

I believe in democracy. I believe in the selection of party nominees through primaries rather than by bosses in smoke-filled rooms. For the bosses to disregard the will of the voters would be justified only in the most extraordinary cases, such as when important information comes to light after the primary (example: Roy Moore, whom the Alabama Republican Party should not be supporting). Otherwise, if it's something like party label, the solution is for those who are upset about it to back a different candidate and to make their case to the voters.

That is all.

Why would anyone oppose this?

The reasons why Democratic members of Congress forced multiple votes on this issue to be able to use the GOP's failure to require trump to release his tax returns as an issue in 2018.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-democrats-petition-for-president-trumps-tax-returns/ At least two such votes have been taken and this will be one of the issues used in the mid terms. It is difficult to imagine that the party could support a candidate who follows in trump's footsteps and refuses to release their tax returns.

And never have.

Really, how does a requirement to disclose tax returns get any candidate elected to office?

Campaign finances don't really matter regarding how elected representatives shade their votes?

It seems that the best way to get over this hurdle of requiring tax returns would be to have the entire nation of tax paying Americans have open disclosure of tax returns. Just the Amount earned and amount of tax paid.

The benefit being sought here would then be any person running for public office is already out in the public realm. No bickering.

And for the Naysayers on total transparency for the entire country on public tax returns, this would expose wealth inequality to the masses, it would definitely show gender biased wage inequalities and maybe lead to breaking the glass ceiling, it would expose wage inequality negations based on job descriptions and related pay.


If people are afraid of invasion or privacy, there's probably more personal information regarding any individual on this website in privately held data bases than folks want to realize. (cookies anyone?)

the moral standing to demand that the other party nominee also puts forward his or her returns.

Requiring all Americans to publicly state their income and tax amount would accomplish NOTHING.

... to fight poverty and work toward creating living wage jobs? Fighting environmental exploitation? Creating a single payer health care infrastructure? Creating a sustainable social security net with health care for disabled people and elderly retired workers? Insuring justice is really for all citizens without a militarized police state?

Instead of the narrow demand of ones opponents tax returns democrats should be claiming a moral standing regarding the serious concerns of America.

just saying....

There's a name for the current state of affairs: target fixation.

I don't think you actually believe that either.

Congressional democrats have forced two or three votes on requiring trump to release tax returns and these votes will be used against the GOP candidates who supported trump

Any candidate for the Democratic nomination who refuses to release their tax returns will be aiding and abetting trump on this issue and should be denied a spot on the ballot

You cannot support trump's position on releasing tax return and be a good democrat in my opinion

isn't a good democrat either.

and neither is being a policy wonk.

In 2020, I expect that there will be several states that will have adopted ballot access laws requiring disclosure of tax returns. All candidates running for the 2020 Democratic nomination should comply with and support these laws.

Democrats and the Democratic Party believes in full disclosure and transparency. Anyone running for the 2020 Democratic nomination should comply with and support these principles

Most Democrats say “Democratic”.

gave them to PPR they so richly deserved.

pedestaled politician refuses to be transparent. Funny how cognitive dissonance works.

These laws will require candidates to disclose tax returns to get onto the ballot. These laws will be in blue states such as New Jersey, New York, California (if Governor Brown retires) and Mass. Trump will sue to strike down these laws. Would you support a candidate for the Democratic nomination who joins in or supports trump in this litigation?

If a candidate for the Democratic nomination joined or supported trump in this type of litigation, a number of members of the party would react badly

and caucuses to produce their tax returns first -- as Hillary did.

If someone doesn't want to do that, they can run as an independent. So there's no Constitutional issue.

Look, I'm not into purity tests, and I don't think everything anyone's ever done in their lives should be held against them. I don't care if someone smoked pot 20 years ago, or had a legal abortion, or got a bad grade on an English test.

Taxes are a different matter; they're part of the social contract, and since government is responsible for collecting and administering taxes and the services they provide, I think it's important to know if a candidate has paid them (or tried to avoid them).