TRUMP FOUGHT THE LAW AND THE LAW WON

So we finally get to see Trump’s taxes. The only parts that would be relevant to the rest of America would be evidence of tax crimes, or something that could have impacted his role as President. We already knew he wasn’t much of a businessman-that’s been proven by multiple bankruptcies, inability to obtain domestic financing, and his suggestion that the U.S. try offering less than face value to bondholders with a threat of default.

What is of real significance  are the motives of a candidate who refuses to produce any tax records. When someone runs for office, they have to accept that their entire life is an open book, and what might be purely private areas for ordinary citizens becomes important public knowledge when one is in a position of power. There’s not a whole lot you and I can do to influence the direction of any of our investments, but elected officials can and do. If someone wants to serve the country in an elected capacity, we have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest or if they are beholden to any foreign power or any special interest groups.

Right now there are no laws requiring candidates for federal office to release tax returns. The U.S. Constitution sets forth the requirements to hold these offices, and aside from age, residence and citizenship, there are no others. It’s dubious Congress could pass a law requiring this as a condition for getting on the ballot and that such a law law would survive a court challenge.

However, the Congress itself could likely require all members after election to publicly disclose their tax returns. The Constitution says that each house of Congress shall determine it’s members’ “qualifications,” who it seats, and who it expels, and there’s no reason to believe the Founders meant to permanently limit that to citizenship, age or residence. The Constitution grants  Congress authority to refuse to seat or expel a member; if returns evidenced wrongdoing or profound ethical violations, shouldn’t they be able to prevent such a person from being seated? We know from the Trump tax matter that the statute authorizing certain House committee chairs to subpoena and release the taxes of any American is fully constitutional, so long as it serves a valid legislative purpose. (In Trump’s case, he himself set off the process when he claimed he couldn’t release his taxes because the IRS was hounding and persecuting him with what he called a permanent audit. Congress decided to investigate, as there is a law calling for an annual audit of a President, but not an endless one. As it turned out, the IRS under Trump was not even carrying out the audits for the first two years, and then simply looked at his forms the next two. We would have never learned of this dereliction of duty but for the subpoena.) Congress could make release a condition of being seated under the evaluation of qualifications. 

A statute like I’m talking about would have stopped a fraudster like George Santos dead in his tracks. All his lies about employment, charity and affluence would have been exposed immediately. The nation and the people of his district would have been spared what is increasingly a political nightmare for the GOP, a loss of representation for that district, and if such a thing is possible, has lowered public opinion of Congress.

We all have to show our taxes to buy a house. Anyone who wants to sit in the House (or Senate) ought to be required to do the same.

Leave a Reply