Two years ago, the California State Legislature passed a bill which would require gubernatorial and presidential candidates to reveal their tax returns to the public.
The bill was summarily struck down as unconstitutional within a matter of months. In fact, the California Supreme Court unanimously struck down the legislation!
Of course, going back two years, one finds that even the Los Angeles Times warned Governor Newsom and the state legislature from pursuing this course.
![]("https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mPiv4cSJrSc/YGNaWE4-WJI/AAAAAAACLmA/ObGgPTHkqmECG--7C1J_b00iOZTi5hkWACLcBGAsYHQ/s275/Trump%2Bv%2BNewsom.jpg")
Consider this editorial in light of what happened:
It’s understandable that Gov.
Gavin Newsom would want to set himself apart from his predecessor and show the
world that he’s not just Jerry Brown 2.0. But by signing a very problematic
bill on Tuesday — one that Brown vetoed in 2017 — Newsom took a slap at Donald
Trump that is hyperpartisan, probably counterproductive and perhaps even
unconstitutional.
Gavin Newsom would want to set himself apart from his predecessor and show the
world that he’s not just Jerry Brown 2.0. But by signing a very problematic
bill on Tuesday — one that Brown vetoed in 2017 — Newsom took a slap at Donald
Trump that is hyperpartisan, probably counterproductive and perhaps even
unconstitutional.
The “Presidential Tax Transparency and
Accountability Act” is clearly directed at Trump, who as a candidate
bucked the modern tradition of releasing his tax returns during the campaign.
The new law requires that candidates for president in California release five
years of tax records before they can be included on the state’s primary ballot.
Accountability Act” is clearly directed at Trump, who as a candidate
bucked the modern tradition of releasing his tax returns during the campaign.
The new law requires that candidates for president in California release five
years of tax records before they can be included on the state’s primary ballot.
The legislation was clearly unconstitutional, not "perhaps" unconstitutional. What nonsense! The Los Angeles Times desperately wanted to shore up their support for Gavin Newsom, all the while trying to stop him from making this very political mistake. No matter how corrupt and partisan the corporate press has become, they have to pretend to show some semblance of objectivity.
This means Trump must turn over
his tax documents in the 2020 election or be left off California’s March
primary ballot. Hah. Take that Mr. Trump. Will this damage Trump’s reelection
bid? Of course not. No matter what happens in California’s primary, Trump’s
name is likely to be on the November general election ballot in all states. And
the only people hurt by his failure to appear on the primary ballot are the
millions of California Republicans who will be denied the right to pick the
candidate of their choice.
his tax documents in the 2020 election or be left off California’s March
primary ballot. Hah. Take that Mr. Trump. Will this damage Trump’s reelection
bid? Of course not. No matter what happens in California’s primary, Trump’s
name is likely to be on the November general election ballot in all states. And
the only people hurt by his failure to appear on the primary ballot are the
millions of California Republicans who will be denied the right to pick the
candidate of their choice.
Furthemore, this action hurts all the taxpayers in the state of California, because of the ongoing legal challenges which would take place. This also makes Democrats look petty and vindictive.
To be clear: Presidential
candidates ought to share their tax documents with the public. Trump’s refusal
to do so was arrogant, and left the country rightly wondering what conflicts of
interests he has and just how little he has been paying in taxes.
candidates ought to share their tax documents with the public. Trump’s refusal
to do so was arrogant, and left the country rightly wondering what conflicts of
interests he has and just how little he has been paying in taxes.
Wait? Who says that the President, or any presidential nominee, has to share their tax returns with the public? There is nothing in state or federal statute anywhere, and certainly not in the United States Constitution, which requires a presidential candidate to tell the world how much he pays in income taxes or otherwise.
But adding new requirements for
candidates is a bad idea. If California adds this partisan requirement as a
slap at Trump, what’s to stop red states from adding a requirement that
candidates release their birth certificates? Will some states require
candidates to release their health records? Do we really want every state to
have its own requirements governing who can run for president? That’s a recipe
for confusion.
candidates is a bad idea. If California adds this partisan requirement as a
slap at Trump, what’s to stop red states from adding a requirement that
candidates release their birth certificates? Will some states require
candidates to release their health records? Do we really want every state to
have its own requirements governing who can run for president? That’s a recipe
for confusion.
These are lame reasons for the LA Times editorial board to urge the Governor to reject signing the bill. They do not want to offer the principled reason–it's unconstitutional–because the LA Times is another partisan Democratic organ, nothing more. They have no credibility, no integrity, and no one has any interest in taking them seriously.
If voters think a candidate should
have released his tax returns, they can punish him or her at the polls on
election day.
have released his tax returns, they can punish him or her at the polls on
election day.
Wow! What a concept. Of course, the LA Times will tell readers that they should vote for the Democratic candidate, or else admit that they are racist.
The new law also may be
unconstitutional. As we have pointed out in editorials more
than once, states have the authority to regulate some ballot access for federal
elections. Beyond that it’s not clear if they even have the legal right to
place further restrictions on presidential candidates beyond what is already
required by the U.S. Constitution — that a candidate be 35 years old, a
natural-born U.S. citizen and a resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years.
unconstitutional. As we have pointed out in editorials more
than once, states have the authority to regulate some ballot access for federal
elections. Beyond that it’s not clear if they even have the legal right to
place further restrictions on presidential candidates beyond what is already
required by the U.S. Constitution — that a candidate be 35 years old, a
natural-born U.S. citizen and a resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years.
It's clear that they have NO right to interfere with demands and limitations or requirements or conditions for federal candidates running for national office. The United States Constitution provides the process by which electors are to be selected, but the states cannot throw in arbitrary rules to limit who can place their names on the ballot.
If other states take similar
action, it may well deepen the partisan divide that has roiled politics and
turned Americans against one another. How does that help?
action, it may well deepen the partisan divide that has roiled politics and
turned Americans against one another. How does that help?
The Los Angeles Times actually wants to scold and lecture the state legislature about being partisan? Really? The LA Times goes out of its way to push regressive, leftist talking points, all of which are undermining our country and hurting the common fabric that has kept this country together for 245 years. What a shame that the LA Times actually thinks that they can rollback the hackneyed partisanship which they have fomented for the last five years.
It's good that the LA Times slammed Governor Newsom for supporting this terrible Tax Return Primary Bill, but they had laid the groundwork with their relentless progressive posturing which made such legal maneuvers all but inevitable.