HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Democrats call for law on...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 04:42 PM

Democrats call for law on presidential candidate tax returns

Source: LA Times

By Morgan Little

July 18, 2012, 12:50 p.m.
WASHINGTON -- A pair of congressional brothers sought Wednesday to rally support for greater transparency among presidential candidates, particularly in regard to the hot topic around Washington this week tax returns.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, announced he is preparing legislation to amend 1978s Ethics and Government Act to mandate that all presidential candidates release at least 10 years of tax returns. As it stands now, its up to each candidate how much of their financial history they wish to disclose, a standard that Levin says is insufficient, particularly in regard to the disclosure of offshore accounts, compensatory arrangements and the details of capital gains income.

As with anything in Washington, the legislation has more than a little to do with the current presidential campaign, as Democrats have been hammering Republican Mitt Romney to release more than the single tax return he has thus far made public.

While making clear that he thinks Romney should release his past returns, Sander Levin said the matter is not a question of disqualification, but of information, citing the need for candidates to not only provide their tax returns, but to do so in a way that allows the average American to understand them.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-democrats-call-for-legislation-action-on-presidential-tax-returns-20120718,0,4608989.story

14 replies, 2314 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to eppur_se_muova (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 04:44 PM

1. I love that we're being totally pissy about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:20 PM

5. agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:42 PM

9. That sums it up for me, too.

Well put!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eppur_se_muova (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 04:46 PM

2. Atta way. Twist the knife and watch the R's squirm. No mercy on these fucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eppur_se_muova (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:07 PM

3. It's a great idea

Once again it will make republicans vote on something they do not want, transparency! Getting them on record is always a good idea, especially in an election year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eppur_se_muova (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:18 PM

4. Unconstitutional on its face......

The Constitution sets forth the requirements to run for President. I think any attempt to add any additional requirement, however reasonable and appropriate, is unconstitutional on its face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:28 PM

6. This has no chance of passing, it's just for political point making. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:31 PM

7. Yes, new requirements should be a Constitutional amendment.

Which could be a short addition to the amendment to override "citizens united." movetoamend.org

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:43 PM

10. It could be part of election law, rather than requirements for office. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:43 PM

11. Did that stop the baggers from howling to make showing a birth certificate mandatory?

Constitutionality didn't stop all of the huffing, puffing and bloviating about that crazy topic that only rabid conspiracy theorists wailed about. Do you think the American People would be interested in seeing where Mittens has hidden all of his money or what he has chosen to to with it? Yes. Yes I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:44 PM

12. Its a nice finger in the eye of the GOP.

Hope the media picks it up and discusses it.

It will never happen, but would be a great thing to discuss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 06:19 PM

14. Mitt proposed a requirment that a President should have business experience

So this is the answer for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eppur_se_muova (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 05:42 PM

8. Didn't the Republicans want to have some kind of requirement concerning

something to do with sex after Clinton's scandal with Monica?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eppur_se_muova (Original post)

Reply to this thread