URL of Article:
-Image from Article:
-Summary/Reaction: This article discusses the lawsuit that
was filed against the state of California by the Trump campaign and the
Republican party. They are suing over the new law in California (SB27)
which requires that Presidential and Gubernatorial candidates must provide 5
years of tax returns in order to be on the primary ballot in California.
The lawsuit argues that this new law is illegal (violating the 1st and 14th
Amendments and claim, “The issue of whether the President should release his
federal tax returns was litigated in the 2016 election and the American people
spoke …” California Governor Newsom who signed the bill into class argues that
“There’s an easy fix for the President … He should release his tax returns as
he promised during the campaign and follow the precedent of every president
since 1973.” My reaction to this article is that I am glad that
California is requiring that candidates running for the top office in the
country be open and transparent with the American people, however I do think it
is possible that the law will get struck down by the courts.
-History Connection: I can connect this to the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971, which required that all federal candidates to
Congress or the Presidency release campaign finance information to the
public. This law’s goal was to provide the American people with more
detailed information about how campaigns were financed just like this new
California law requires that candidates also share key information with the
public.
-Question(s) for Discussion: Do you think it is OK for California to require tax returns to be released in order to be on the primary ballot?
To me, SB27 seems like unnecessary legislation. Whether or not a candidate chooses to release tax returns is up to the candidate. But should a candidate not choose to release tax returns, voters have the right to take that as a sign of the candidate’s (lack of) transparency and ethics. I am also opposed to laws that are seemingly responding to one specific person (Trump), even given his statistical unpopularity in California.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this law does seem to be targeting one candidate ... however I also like the idea of transparency. But, in the 2016 election, the American people voted for the candidate that did not release tax returns so perhaps this law is not necessary and it should be left to the American people.
DeleteI think the lawsuit that was filed was unreasonable. I think this because the candidate should be able to choose if he/she wants to release tax returns.
ReplyDeleteThe lawsuit that the president filed is unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this excellent blog. More people do need to be informed about the campaigns and how it works.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to see how the State of California reacts to the seemingly closed doors of the President. Although the law does violate the amendments and will likely be rendered null, I do agree that as the country leader one should be completely open with their intentions. Often a ruler is hidden, and makes a decision that goes against the people. Which eventually leads to chaotic and troublesome discourse, as exampled in the French Revolution.
ReplyDelete