(Caption from article) President Trump arrives in Los Angeles on Wednesday. On Thursday, a federal judge agreed to block the implementation of a state election law that would force disclosure of his tax returns. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)
This week, California stated that they want presidential nominees to show their tax returns in order to run. However, it is seemed to attack President Trump since many people want to have his tax returns revealed to the public. The ruling decided by the courts on Thursday was that California cannot force candidates to share their tax returns.
California Gov. Newson argued that "The United States Constitution grants states the authority to determine how their electors are chosen, and California is well within its constitutional right to include this requirement." We learned in class that elections are part of state powers. So is it alright for states to ask Trump for his records?
On the other hand, Trump's lawyer, Jay Sekulow stated that we "are encouraged that the federal court tentatively concluded that a preliminary injunction should be granted...It remains our position that the law is unconstitutional because states are not permitted to add additional requirements for candidates for president, and that the law violates the Constitution."
Another lawyer for Trump, Thomas McCarthy, argued that by setting this law into stone, it could lead to candidates having to be forced to share information about their mental and physical health.
Personally, I would be curious to see Trump's or any candidate's tax returns to help reinforce the realities of the wealth distribution in this nation. Perhaps this might help with business corruption, which is beneficial to our democracy as a whole. But the question still lingers - is this a violation of privacy rights? That to be honest, I am not entirely sure about.
Personally, I would be curious to see Trump's or any candidate's tax returns to help reinforce the realities of the wealth distribution in this nation. Perhaps this might help with business corruption, which is beneficial to our democracy as a whole. But the question still lingers - is this a violation of privacy rights? That to be honest, I am not entirely sure about.
Has California, known to be democratic/liberal, gone too far? Or is it our right to know about Trump's or any candidate's tax returns?
10 comments:
While I understand that it is the states’ rights to regulate both state and national elections, I don’t think making this proposition into law will help us in the way we might think. I think the main reason this was proposed was because Trump has been an evident impediment towards the progress of this nation, looking more to the past rather than creating policies for the future. However, I think this law is playing too much into the cancel culture that has been growing these past couple of years. By this I mean punishing people for doing things that they did years if not decades ago. Especially in the advent of a growing digital environment, simple, innocent, or even misinterpreted acts we do are being exposed and ridiculed by the public (something that should be addressed, but shouldn’t be a reason to discount people as news shock: people can change :). If this law were to be put into action, this could expose personal information that may be confidential to the candidate. As you stated in your summary, I don’t think having medical records open to the public is something that embodies the American message of freedom to personal property.
I definitely see Carlos' point of view about personal growth, but I believe it would be better for all presidential candidates to release their tax returns. I agree more with California's ideology that voters deserve to get a full picture of the presidential runners and tax returns could help reach this goal. While I understand that Trump has the right to not release his tax returns, what I don't understand is why he does not have a valid reason for going against this tradition. If Trump's advisors know that releasing tax returns is a part of running for president, then them not following the "50 years of tradition" and not explaining why they chose to go against tradition leads me to believe that they're trying to hide some information. Although people can change, Trump doesn't seem to have a radically new perspective on the topics that were previously discussed with him. Therefore, whatever shows up on the tax returns is likely what he would believe now, therefore helping paint a better picture of the presidential candidate.
I agree with Shirleen on the note that President Trump's attitude towards the topic makes him seem like he has a reason to hide something and that his tax return information should be released, as well as presidents in the future. It could serve as another factor for voters to consider during elections. However, I feel that the call for the state election law should first be agreed upon by more than one state, not just California, since there would be an obviously larger image of support for the law. In response to McCarthy's statement, like Carlos I do think that the privacy of medical records is important, but I also think that there is a difference between the significance of the privacy of tax return information and the privacy of a person's health information. I could be wrong, but tax returns and health records seem like they are at different levels of importance to me, and I do not believe that having a law stating that candidates must be open about their tax returns will lead to the candidates having to release their medical information as well.
To be honest, every individual in this country should have some privacy obviously. However, when it comes to presidents, they are most often putting themselves out there and deserve privacy to a whole another extent, like celebrities. I agree with others that the Presidents tax return would reveal many things about our society. Medical records should not be shown to the public because that is personal and isn't necessarily relevant to the elections. Furthermore, having enforced a law in California regarding Trump specifically and his tax return does seem fishy to me because he is being extra secretive.
I think that requiring presidential candidates to open tax returns to the public by law is somewhat problematic. While it's certainly a tradition for POTUS elections, tradition isn't always the best guiding point for politics (see: racial discrimination, party bosses, etc). Moreover, there is definitely a real risk that sensitive and damaging information could be compelled to be open to the public, like mental health issues that are irrelevant to the presidency. I think that the call for open tax returns is likely a misdirection of suspicion and anger at Trump's perceived and perhaps real faults, like corruption in previous businesses. This sentiment might be more useful when directed elsewhere, like getting better information guidelines for elections and politics in general to combat misinformation and fake news claims.
I believe that despite California's good will, this step is too far. Tax returns are a private matter that can reveal a lot about a person, things that should never have to be public. In the context of a president like Trump, the public is interested to see what he's up to as many are suspicious of him. However, with more trusted presidents who don't raise such concerns, this is simply a gross violation of the privacy that Americans value so highly.
Although I agree with Zoe that privacy is a value that America values greatly, I don't see how tax returns could reveal things that never have to be public. Tax returns are simply the calculations of one's income along with the taxes payable to the government. I don't think this would reveal anything the public could not already find out through extensive research on a political candidate. Should the law be allowed, potential candidates would pay attention to their finances so that their tax returns only display what they are okay with revealing to the public. Albeit Trump was regarded with more suspicion than most presidents in the past, this doesn't mean that future presidents will be any better with their honesty. I think that the requirement to reveal tax returns may be a good preventative measure to reveal illegal or immoral secrets that presidential candidates are trying to hide.
I agree with what Grace has said because as a presidential nominee, you should have a sense of transparency toward the public because you are going to be in front of more than 300 million Americans anyways. Because of this, the president should be comfortable with what has happened in the past because the past is what has happened and they should not want to hide it; this would cause distrust. However, this reveals a necessary change on both parts of the government, as the people and politicians have to remember that what has happened in the past could have happened decades ago like what Carlos said. So, they should not primarily focus on what a nominee has done but focus on what they have to offer in the future and the changes or policies that they plan on implementing. If the public is willing to accept the past actions of a president and the president is willing to share their past tax returns then, the problem would be solved. So, the president should be willing to share their tax return reports but the people should not ravage a person based on their tax returns.
While I agree that all presidents should show transparency towards the 300 million people they serve, I agree with the uproar that the president needs to release his tax returns. The release of tax returns is a political tradition, not a federal policy, and I don't think the people should be devoting so much energy towards unveiling the president's tax returns. I agree with Cameron's statement that we should focus on what presidents have to offer in the future partially. I still think it is important that presidents be held accountable for what they have done in the past, but in this case, the president is, under federal policy, no legal obligation to release his tax returns. It certainly would make things a lot easier for both the people and the president if he were to release his tax returns but the fact remains that not releasing tax returns is in accordance with federal law. Nevertheless, a requirement that all presidents must release their tax returns could possibly be challenged in the context of equal protection of the law, as ordinary citizens and most other public figures would still not be required to release returns, whereas the president would be
Post a Comment