• Cosmos7349@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    As it turns out, his financials actually ARE under audit… just instead of the IRS, it’s by various parts of the justice system

    • qantravon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think it’s ok for them to have stocks, they just should be put into a blind trust to manage, and they shouldn’t be able to make any transactions outside of that for the duration of their term in office.

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        And the potential conflicts of interest should be described so their decisions can be analyzed against them if necessary.

    • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Or, ya know, you could just make everyones publicly available by request along with earnings. Like they do in Finland.

      Strangely, this seems to lower the amount of corruption in government and non-government organisations.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        America is weirdly fucking puritanical about disclosing income. One of the many anti-union cultural legacies.

        • cooljacob204@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          It would be one of the most impactful pro worker thing the government could do right now. So it won’t happen:(

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I was not prepared to learn the White House Phrase for Kamala’s husband is Second Gentleman.

    I like it. It’s cute.

  • MysticDaedra@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Being required to disclose tax records could potentially violate a candidate’s Fifth Amendment rights. At the very least such a requirement would require a Constitutional amendment.