Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Do you think this helps conservatives?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 3256903" data-attributes="member: 277"><p>Perhaps. As i've maintained, i do not know where there is a limit. But, even if it's meant to target one person, group or activity, crafting a law in such as way as to be equal across the board has been shown to get some things around legal challenges. </p><p></p><p>And 'financial status' is certainly a board topic. It could be that a state decides it wants to keep candidates honest about their backgrounds and 'prove' the claims a candidate is making about their wealth or business prowess (in the case of trump). Or to show who does and doesn't actually pay federal taxes, etc. </p><p></p><p>Disclosing the information *could* show more about the person's honesty than just what his or her net income was at any given point. But again, i don't know if the courts will say that it is a reasonable and legal requirement or not. Nothing is forcing a candidate to turn over the documents, he or she just risks being left off the ballot. Clearly it matters more in a state like california than it would in iowa or oklahoma (in terms of electoral votes), but i don't know of any requirement for a candidate for president to be on the ballot in all states (though i admit there may be one somewhere). </p><p></p><p>But if we are going to start worrying about what is going on on the state level in terms of elections then i think there are broader concerns in terms of purging voting rolls, closing polling stations, etc than what is being required candidates to disclose.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="donner, post: 3256903, member: 277"] Perhaps. As i've maintained, i do not know where there is a limit. But, even if it's meant to target one person, group or activity, crafting a law in such as way as to be equal across the board has been shown to get some things around legal challenges. And 'financial status' is certainly a board topic. It could be that a state decides it wants to keep candidates honest about their backgrounds and 'prove' the claims a candidate is making about their wealth or business prowess (in the case of trump). Or to show who does and doesn't actually pay federal taxes, etc. Disclosing the information *could* show more about the person's honesty than just what his or her net income was at any given point. But again, i don't know if the courts will say that it is a reasonable and legal requirement or not. Nothing is forcing a candidate to turn over the documents, he or she just risks being left off the ballot. Clearly it matters more in a state like california than it would in iowa or oklahoma (in terms of electoral votes), but i don't know of any requirement for a candidate for president to be on the ballot in all states (though i admit there may be one somewhere). But if we are going to start worrying about what is going on on the state level in terms of elections then i think there are broader concerns in terms of purging voting rolls, closing polling stations, etc than what is being required candidates to disclose. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Do you think this helps conservatives?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom