California introduces bill forcing presidential candidates to release taxes

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The required FEC candidate filing form doesnt require the information contained in a persons tax return.

Thats why this proposed law is bs. There is no legal requirements for a candidate to disclose his tax returns and over the years candidates have done this as an accepted custom, but its not required and Trump is not the first President who hasn't released his tax returns.

This law is the left looking for a way to go after trump in the next election. Since IRS laws prohibit the release of a persons tax returns (its a crime to release them) this is the only way they have to go after Trump. New York is also trying a version of this as well.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then what the EFF is Californias issue ?

Yes. Candidates for federal office must file disclosures of their personal finances.

Other than loving to create superfluous laws that infringe the rights of their citizens.

a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic

You can not FORCE someone to voluntary do something.

Correct.

California has 55 Electoral College Votes, that is a major chunk of the Electoral College total.

What has that to do with the California Republican primary? The bill says nothing about the general election.

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic
a reply to: Phage
Let me begin with saying that no one gives up ownership to their thoughts when the post here on ATS or anywhere. Those posted thoughts should be attributed to that poster, anyone claiming that the posted thoughts of another are their own is committing plagiarism. See how it works?
You can not FORCE someone to voluntary do something. California has 55 Electoral College Votes, that is a major chunk of the Electoral College total. This isn't a voluntary waiving of a right, This is Blackmail.
" We have a nice bunch of Electoral Votes here in California, It would be a shame if you lost them by not playing ball our way."

Keep in mind that this proposed law would not affect write-in candidates. So, if Trump didn't want to comply, primary voters could still write his name in. (Provided he follows the other procedures for write-in candidates, in California -- like filing the declaration within 21 days of the primary.)

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The required FEC candidate filing form doesnt require the information contained in a persons tax return.

No, but the point I was making is that you are already disclosing aspects of your finances because you are running for a public office.

a reply to: Phage

this is not just for being placed on Primary Ballots, but General Elections as well.

originally posted by: neo96
Then what the EFF is Californias issue ?

I guess they want to run their state as they want, you know, state's rights.

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic
a reply to: Phage

this is not just for being placed on Primary Ballots, but General Elections as well.

No, it is just for the primary.

ETA: Here's the text from the proposed law: SB-149 Presidential primary elections: ballot access.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neo96
Then what the EFF is Californias issue ?

I guess they want to run their state as they want, you know, state's rights.

Sorry State rights don't apply.

Since it's already been stated the IRS is a federal agency.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The required FEC candidate filing form doesnt require the information contained in a persons tax return.

No, but the point I was making is that you are already disclosing aspects of your finances because you are running for a public office.

and I was adding that Democrats want details on Trumps tax returns to use against him and that the FEC form doesnt provide the specifics Democrats want.

aside from going after Trump the FEC disclosure has always been good enough - until Trump won and Clinton lost. They are so bitter that not only did Clinton lose, but who she lost to.

This is Democrats continuing their weaponization of the IRS to use against their enemies - again.

If they want IRS information then they should also require candidates to submit their birth certificate to verify they meet Constitutional requirements and voters should be required to provide ID to vote to stop fraud / illegals from voting.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The establishment of the Judicial Brach guarantees anyone the right to be on a Ballot? (Article III)

Where does Amendment XII mention Primaries again? And where does it mention the Ballots for the popular vote?

Poll tax? You're saying that the requirement to submit a tax return is a poll tax? Heh. I'd love to see you wrap that pretzel.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

after I read your post I read four more articles on the matter and in the L.A. Times article the state it is for primaries.
You are correct.
I withdraw my previous statement.

originally posted by: neo96
Sorry State rights don't apply.

Since it's already been stated the IRS is a federal agency.

I'm thinking you don't exactly understand what state's rights mean.

a reply to: Gryphon66

My bad - Article II section 1.

Twelfth Amendment

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President to the United States.

How can a state law be compliant if they restrict access to the ballot and by extension, affecting how the electoral college works?

Twenty-Fourth Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Demanding a tax return in order to appear on a ballot. If a person doesnt file taxes it doesnt disqualify the person to run for office. My point being they are setting up additional requirements outside the ones set forth in the Constitution.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
and I was adding that Democrats want details on Trumps tax returns to use against him and that the FEC form doesnt provide the specifics Democrats want.

Oh well, tough dinkums for Trump. If they want to pass this legislation and have it apply equally I don't really care, it's their state.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is nothing in Section 1 that requires a State to have a primary, or for that matter, a general election for President.

The only thing the States are required to do is select Electors and comply with the rest of the Constitution; they don't have to hold Primaries or really a General Election for President. The Constitution requires them to select Electors and structures how those Electors elect the President and Vice President.

I know what the 24th says ... now as I mentioned, explain how anything in the CA proposed legislation sets a poll tax.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neo96
Sorry State rights don't apply.

Since it's already been stated the IRS is a federal agency.

I'm thinking you don't exactly understand what state's rights mean.

Clearly some don't.

Feel free to explain to me why federal tax information is somehow relevant to a state election.

originally posted by: neo96
Feel free to explain to me why federal tax information is somehow relevant to a state election.

Because they want it to be, ergo, state's rights.

If you think it's un-Constitutional then file an amicus brief once the legislation passes.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The only thing the States are required to do is select Electors and comply with the rest of the Constitution; they don't have to hold Primaries or really a General Election for President. The Constitution requires them to select Electors and structures how those Electors elect the President and Vice President.

The other thing is that political parties are not Federal, they are private groups running citizens for public office. They make their own rules every election.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Because they want it to be, ergo, state's rights.

Arizona wanted to enforce it's own border.

But that wasn't gonna happen.

Funny how state rights meant so little then, but they do now.