According to this Washington Post article, the text of HR 1 (the Democratic bill for federal election law changes) will include a provision requiring presidential candidates to reveal their income tax returns for 10 previous years. It is very difficult to imagine how this bill will be worded. The federal government has no connection with ballot access, so one wonders how the proposed law could be enforced. Even setting aside that problem, congress has no more authority to add qualifications to run for federal office than the states do. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
Yep. absolutely unconstitutional. The Dems are showing their true stripes as tyrants. They make the RINOs and Warhawks look like sheep.
Perhaps this will inspire states to go with district election of presidential electors and have the actual presidential electors named on the ballots as candidates. Would also make ballot access for minor parties and independents easier since they could at least get on a few districts in states with the most Draconian access laws.
How come no requirement of a 24/7 videotape of Prez candidate’s life since age zero ???
The 2019 ANTI-Democracy gerrymander OLIGARCHS are setting up Civil WAR II.
See 1860 gerrymander OLIGARCHS >>> 750,000-1,000,000 DEAD in 1861-1866 IN CIVIL WAR I.
PR AND APPV AND TOTAL SEPARATION OF POWERS — REAL REFORMS.
It would probably be worded as an FEC reporting requirement.
Long overdue, the corruption and secrecy must end.Time to end the delusions of conservatism which are the heart of today’s hypocrisy. they preach one code for the masses and another code for the elite.
Billions marching in the streets for UN-limited government ???
— ie TOTAL CONTROL by govt tyrants
— from birth [in a politically correct test tube] to death [with recycled corpses) ???
I think the constitutional question here is a very interesting one. Does making it necessary to publish your tax returns constitute a “qualification” to hold office, in the sense that citizenship, age or residency are “qualifications”? I dunno.
Con LAW 00001 –
Direct = Indirect
CORRUPT HACKS love to rig ALL elections – part of their EVIL political DNA
1. dates
2. office qualifications
3. election areas – esp. gerrymanders
4. ballot access – deadlines, etc.
5. votes to elect
6. term starting dates
Some const law stuff for 1,2,6.
Must put all into consts for the public safety.
add-
7. Elector-Voter definition
Some const law stuff for 1,2,6,7.
Come on folks. THINK. Presidential candidates don’t even run for office. Voters elect representatives (electors) to vote in the electoral college. Yes, FEC laws are (questionably) constitutional because they regulate campaign committees and speech. But they do not regulate a presidential candidate’s actions, let alone compel a candidate to action. So how can FEC laws which apply to a campaign committee compel a candidate to do anything? A: They can’t.
The tyrant FEC laws require Prez candidates to file PURGE lists of donors and who gets donor cash for TV attack ads, etc.
ALL the left/right usual suspects have their updated PURGE lists ready to operate.