This House would post the full financial history of all candidates for political office online

In any society, no matter how liberal, rights of every kind have limitations. Rights are general statements of principles that are then caveated and curtailed to fit the public interest across a range of circumstances. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept that the role they are applying for requires extra transparency. As the representative of the people, the politician is more than just the holder of a job appointed by the people, but is the elected servant, whose duty is to lead, including by example. It is a strange relationship, and it is one that demands the utmost confidence in the holder. This political power will often involve power over the public purse so it is essential for the public to know if the candidate is financially honest and not going to use his election for corrupt purposes.[1] Thus, when citizens place their political power in the hands of an elected representative, they gain the reciprocal right over that representative to have his or her life and character laid bare for their approval. This is done generally through political campaigns that focus on candidates’ character and life story. But often candidates prove reticent to share some details, particularly financial details. But if citizens are to make a good decision about what sort of person they wish to lead them, they require information about the financial background of their representatives, to see that they comport themselves in business in a way that is fitting to the character of a leader.

[1] Rossi, I., and Blackburn, T., “Why do financial disclosure systems matter for corruption?” blogs.worldbank.org, 8 November 2012, http://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/why-do-financial-disclosure-systems-matter-for-corruption

So long as politicians do their duty by representing the interests of those that elected them, they are fulfilling their end of the covenant with the people. To demand the financial records of candidates will not offer more than crude snapshot of one aspect of their lives, not giving the desired insight into their character, while massively intruding on the politician’s personal life. As is often the case here the right to know conflicts with the candidates right to privacy. Of course it is right to know if a candidate pays his taxes, but do they need to know every expense he has incurred over the last few years or how much a candidate earned years ago?

A lot of politicians come from positions of prestige and power before seeking public office. Many politicians have wealth in their own right, or a base of wealthy supporters. Understanding where that wealth came from and how they used their privileged position is very important to citizens when choosing their leaders. Access to candidates’ financial information allows good candidates to show their honesty and financial uprightness, and sometimes even to display their talent and acumen that allowed them to succeed. More importantly, it allows people to scrutinize the dealings of politicians who used their often privileged position to avoid paying high taxes and to shield their wealth from the public taking its legal due. What these insights provide is a valuable snapshot of what candidates are willing to do to promote their own interests versus those of the state and society. It shows if there is a propensity to engage in morally dubious practices, and such behavior could well be extrapolated to be a potential incentive to corrupt practice. While tax avoidance is not illegal, it can well be considered unjust when rigorously applied, especially considered that the special knowledge necessary to profit from it belongs only to those of wealth and privilege. The value of this knowledge was made particularly clear in the case of Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. When Romney released his tax returns it became painfully clear that he was using the system to his advantage, at the expense of the taxpayer.[1] Citizens deserve to know to what lengths, if any, those who wish to represent them are willing to game the system they would be elected to lead.

[1] Drucker, J. “Romney Avoids Taxes Via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations”. Bloomberg. 29 October 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html

Tax avoidance is not illegal, and it should not be treated as if it were by the prying media and would-be class-warriors. Even if one might think it unpleasant to look for loopholes to protect private wealth, it is really only natural for people to wish to pay no more than they have to in tax. Mitt Romney was simply using the skills that allowed him to be a great business success to keep his costs as low as possible. Trying to make a political issue out of these sorts of dealings only serves to obscure from the real policy issues, and to focus the debate on divisive and unhelpful issues of class war.

When candidates make proposals for public spending they often seek to use their own financial stories as evidence of their credibility. Without public knowledge of their actual financial record, besides what can be gleaned from secondary sources and their words, these claims cannot be evaluated fully by the voting public. Publishing their financial records allows the citizens to get a genuine grasp of their –would-be representatives abilities. More importantly, the proposals of candidates can be scrutinized in relation to how the candidate, and those of the same financial stratum as the candidate, would benefit from them. When Mitt Romney proposed new tax and spending reforms in the last US presidential election, it was clear that his policies inordinately favored the rich and increased the tax burden of the middle class.[1] Understanding Romney’s personal position of great wealth served confirm to the public their suspicions that his policies were designed to favor the financial elite of which he was a part. It is in the public’s interest to elect representatives who serve their interests, not those of moneyed elites.

[1] Dwyer, P. “Surprise! Romney Tax Plan Favors the Rich”. Bloomberg. 1 August 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-01/surprise-romney-tax-plan-favors-the-rich.html

Personal finances mean little when it comes to financial policy. Trying to glean any sort of financial acumen on the macro scale from private dealings is extremely misguided. Successful business leaders often make poor political leaders, as the world of business is very different from the horse-trading of politics.[1] In terms of leading others as one leads one’s own life, there is no reason to assume that a candidate who has used the system to his or her advantage would use the additional power of office to enrich themselves or their friends further. Mitt Romney was an effective governor of Massachusetts, and was willing to increase taxes that were personally costly to him.

[1] Jenkins, H. “Good Businessman, Bad President?”. Wall Street Journal. 23 October 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203406404578074620655476826.html

In any society, no matter how liberal, rights of every kind have limitations. Rights are general statements of principles that are then caveated and curtailed to fit the public interest across a range of circumstances. When an individual seeks elevation to public office, he or she must accept that the role they are applying for requires extra transparency. As the representative of the people, the politician is more than just the holder of a job appointed by the people, but is the elected servant, whose duty is to lead, including by example. It is a strange relationship, and it is one that demands the utmost confidence in the holder. This political power will often involve power over the public purse so it is essential for the public to know if the candidate is financially honest and not going to use his election for corrupt purposes.[1] Thus, when citizens place their political power in the hands of an elected representative, they gain the reciprocal right over that representative to have his or her life and character laid bare for their approval. This is done generally through political campaigns that focus on candidates’ character and life story. But often candidates prove reticent to share some details, particularly financial details. But if citizens are to make a good decision about what sort of person they wish to lead them, they require information about the financial background of their representatives, to see that they comport themselves in business in a way that is fitting to the character of a leader.

[1] Rossi, I., and Blackburn, T., “Why do financial disclosure systems matter for corruption?” blogs.worldbank.org, 8 November 2012, http://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/why-do-financial-disclosure-systems-matter-for-corruption

So long as politicians do their duty by representing the interests of those that elected them, they are fulfilling their end of the covenant with the people. To demand the financial records of candidates will not offer more than crude snapshot of one aspect of their lives, not giving the desired insight into their character, while massively intruding on the politician’s personal life. As is often the case here the right to know conflicts with the candidates right to privacy. Of course it is right to know if a candidate pays his taxes, but do they need to know every expense he has incurred over the last few years or how much a candidate earned years ago?

A lot of politicians come from positions of prestige and power before seeking public office. Many politicians have wealth in their own right, or a base of wealthy supporters. Understanding where that wealth came from and how they used their privileged position is very important to citizens when choosing their leaders. Access to candidates’ financial information allows good candidates to show their honesty and financial uprightness, and sometimes even to display their talent and acumen that allowed them to succeed. More importantly, it allows people to scrutinize the dealings of politicians who used their often privileged position to avoid paying high taxes and to shield their wealth from the public taking its legal due. What these insights provide is a valuable snapshot of what candidates are willing to do to promote their own interests versus those of the state and society. It shows if there is a propensity to engage in morally dubious practices, and such behavior could well be extrapolated to be a potential incentive to corrupt practice. While tax avoidance is not illegal, it can well be considered unjust when rigorously applied, especially considered that the special knowledge necessary to profit from it belongs only to those of wealth and privilege. The value of this knowledge was made particularly clear in the case of Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. When Romney released his tax returns it became painfully clear that he was using the system to his advantage, at the expense of the taxpayer.[1] Citizens deserve to know to what lengths, if any, those who wish to represent them are willing to game the system they would be elected to lead.

[1] Drucker, J. “Romney Avoids Taxes Via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations”. Bloomberg. 29 October 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html

Tax avoidance is not illegal, and it should not be treated as if it were by the prying media and would-be class-warriors. Even if one might think it unpleasant to look for loopholes to protect private wealth, it is really only natural for people to wish to pay no more than they have to in tax. Mitt Romney was simply using the skills that allowed him to be a great business success to keep his costs as low as possible. Trying to make a political issue out of these sorts of dealings only serves to obscure from the real policy issues, and to focus the debate on divisive and unhelpful issues of class war.

When candidates make proposals for public spending they often seek to use their own financial stories as evidence of their credibility. Without public knowledge of their actual financial record, besides what can be gleaned from secondary sources and their words, these claims cannot be evaluated fully by the voting public. Publishing their financial records allows the citizens to get a genuine grasp of their –would-be representatives abilities. More importantly, the proposals of candidates can be scrutinized in relation to how the candidate, and those of the same financial stratum as the candidate, would benefit from them. When Mitt Romney proposed new tax and spending reforms in the last US presidential election, it was clear that his policies inordinately favored the rich and increased the tax burden of the middle class.[1] Understanding Romney’s personal position of great wealth served confirm to the public their suspicions that his policies were designed to favor the financial elite of which he was a part. It is in the public’s interest to elect representatives who serve their interests, not those of moneyed elites.

[1] Dwyer, P. “Surprise! Romney Tax Plan Favors the Rich”. Bloomberg. 1 August 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-01/surprise-romney-tax-plan-favors-the-rich.html

Personal finances mean little when it comes to financial policy. Trying to glean any sort of financial acumen on the macro scale from private dealings is extremely misguided. Successful business leaders often make poor political leaders, as the world of business is very different from the horse-trading of politics.[1] In terms of leading others as one leads one’s own life, there is no reason to assume that a candidate who has used the system to his or her advantage would use the additional power of office to enrich themselves or their friends further. Mitt Romney was an effective governor of Massachusetts, and was willing to increase taxes that were personally costly to him.

[1] Jenkins, H. “Good Businessman, Bad President?”. Wall Street Journal. 23 October 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203406404578074620655476826.html

Privacy is a fundamental human right, one that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us.[1] What people do with their own finances is their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. Politicians don’t owe the electorate any special privileges like their financial history. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. His or her duty is not so special as to demand the handing over of all information on one of the most critical aspects of their private life. Financial affairs like income and taxes are a private matter, and should be treated as such by voters and governments. This is even more the case when it comes to financial history, much of which may have happened long before the individual decided to become a politician. Making politicians’ financial affairs fair game for reporters and others who would exploit the information only serves to undermine the rights that all citizens rightly enjoy.

[1] Privacy International. 2010. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 39(1): 58-68. https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/privacy-as-a-political-right

Privacy is a right but it is not sacrosanct, and certainly should not be for people who serve the public. Freedom of speech is considered sacred in a free society, but anyone reasonable would agree that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is not given such protection, showing that even the most treasured rights are curtailed in the public interest. Both the special position of politicians as the effective embodiment of the people’s will, and the special power they wield, which is far vaster than that of any private agent, demands a higher level of scrutiny into their backgrounds, which means looking into their financial records, which can divulge much about their competence and character.

More and more the financial dealings of candidates are used against them in politics. In past decades, politicians in many countries were proud to run on the basis of their successes in the private sector. Today, however, that success has often become a liability. One only need look at the paradigmatic example of this occurrence, Mitt Romney. When running for governor in Massachusetts, his strong record in business was touted as a quality favoring him. Yet in the presidential election, Romney’s wealth was touted as an example of capitalist excess, of often ill-gotten gains.[1] The change in rhetoric has indicated marked shift in politics in a number of countries, most visibly the United States, but also places like France, where the development of wealth and success are deemed to be the marks of greed and unfairness. These trends would only be compounded with the release of candidates’ financial records. People with records of wealth and financial ability will be further demonized as being anti-poor. These sorts of political tactics obscure from the realities of politics and seeks to separate people along class, rather than political ideological, lines. Such divisions are exceptionally dangerous to the functioning of a democratic society, which demands buy-in and willing participation from all classes and groups in order to function.

[1] Erb, K. “Why Romney’s ‘Tax Avoidance’ Strategies Don’t Deserve Criticism”. Forbes. 30 October 2012. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/10/30/why-romneys-tax-avoidance-strategies-dont-deserve-criticism/

Firstly, personal wealth may not be indicative of political belief. Wealthy people can be advocates for higher taxes and workers’ rights. Secondly, maybe creating class awareness is not such a bad thing. The revelation of candidates’ personal finances will help show average voters what their leaders are actually like, that they have acquired great wealth and seek to protect it. Consciousness about these things can only help to galvanize political participation and to stoke real discourse about things like the proper distribution of wealth, issues that often fall foul of the political mainstream of party politics.

Discussion of candidates’ personal finances serves only to obscure the real issues facing society. When the focus becomes on how much tax Candidate X paid and what loopholes he or she exploited, the media tends to latch onto it. It sells more newspapers and gets more hits online to make a salacious story about the financial “misdeeds” of a candidate than to actually discuss what he or she stands for. It fuels the growing tendency of the media to attach itself to petty commentary rather than real investigation and analysis. Ultimately, an examination of the personal finances of a candidate tells voters little about what he or she stands for on the issue of state finances. Throughout history, personal financial success has been shown to not necessarily correlate with political acumen. For example, William Pitt became the young, and one of the longest-serving Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, yet he was in extreme debt when he died.[1] Narrow attention paid to personal finances takes up people’s limited time available to consume useful information to direct their voting, and the news media have limited air time to discuss issues. It is best that both use their time to maximum effect, and not be sidetracked by distractions.

[1] Reilly, Robin (1978). Pitt the Younger 1759–1806. Cassell Publishers. 

While elections should of course focus a great deal of attention on policy, it is also critical that voters understand who exactly it is they are voting for. That means looking beyond the manifesto and getting an understanding of the candidate’s character and private dealings. Having access to their private financial records can go a long way toward revealing this information, as they provide valuable insight into both the candidate’s financial abilities, and his or her attitude toward the state.