House Dems Prepare To Demand Trump Tax Returns With No Evidence Of A Crime

Loading

I’m pretty sure everyone was warned well in advance that if voters gave control of the House back to the Democrats, the “agenda” for the next two years was going to have more to do with trying to cause trouble for Donald Trump than developing any new policies to help the nation. Those predictions are already coming true, barely two months into Nancy Pelosi’s speakership. The latest salvo is coming from the Ways and Means Committee, where Massachusetts Democratic Chairman Richard Neal is preparing to issue demands for years worth of President Trump’s personal tax returns. What do they need them for? The word salad explaining the answer to that question is a wonder to behold. (NBC News)



The top tax-writing committee in the House is readying a request for years of President Donald Trump’s personal tax returns that is expected to land at the Internal Revenue Service as early as the next few weeks, NBC News has learned. And Democrats are prepared to “take all necessary steps,” including litigation, in order to obtain them.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has asked the committee’s attorneys to prepare the request, according to two aides involved in the process. Neal has also contacted the chairs of several other House investigative committees, including Oversight and Government Reform, Financial Services, Intelligence and Judiciary, asking them to provide detailed arguments for why they need the president’s tax returns to conduct their probes.

“Every day the American people and Congress learn more about President Trump’s improprieties, from conflicts of interest to influence peddling, potential tax evasion and violations of the Constitution — all roads leading back to President Trump’s finances,” said Ashley Etienne, spokeswoman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The fact that the initial announcement is coming from a spokesperson out of Pelosi’s office is telling. That means that this plan was being hatched, or at least fully endorsed, in the Speaker’s office. They’re assembling the biggest wave of pressure that can be managed in the effort, too. Before moving forward, Neal is asking for justifications from the leading Democrats in multiple committees as to why they should be able to do this.

It’s true that the Ways and Means Committee has the legal authority to request the private tax returns of any citizen, and in theory, they could initiate legal action in an attempt to force the issue. (That’s why Neal was stuck with the job.) But such requests have to be made as part of an investigation into a crime where the tax returns would provide relevant information. And the government is held to strict accountability in terms of when a private citizen’s tax returns can even be looked at, say nothing of making them public. If you don’t think that those returns will be showing up in the New York Times on the same day the Democrats get hold of them, I’ve got some prime Florida swampland to sell you.

A request such as this would generally be expected to begin with law enforcement investigating a crime. What crime do the Democrats claim has taken place where the President’s personal tax returns might be relevant? The only thing we’re hearing so far, aside from vague charges of “improprieties” is a claim of “potential tax evasion.” Really?

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
228 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Greg: I’m sure Deplorable Me will have some reason why the IRS’s own determination doesn’t apply here, and I’m excited to see what it is!

@Greg: From your post:

The memo—officially titled “Congressional Access to Returns and Return Information”—was authored by the agency’s counsel’s office before the new Congress, but did not ultimately become the agency’s official public position.

Odd how they would have found the same obscure old law that the congress found, almost as if the old insiders were scouring every line of tax code for anything the could use.
At any rate it was kept quiet by the agency. so put a post a note on it we will see if this obscure lil chunk of code will hold enough constitutional legal weight with the Supreme court.
We know it is headed there.

@Michael:

@Greg: I’m sure Deplorable Me will have some reason why the IRS’s own determination doesn’t apply here, and I’m excited to see what it is!

4th Amendment. Show the need for the returns or give it up. Period. Done.

Hey, I asked Greg how many other Presidents had this obscure form of “oversight” deployed against them. Would you care to expand on that, or is this nothing but a partisan, political attack?

May 22, 2019 — Mnuchin Says He Has ‘Not Yet’ Reviewed Memo Mandating IRS Turn Over Trump Tax Returns

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he has “not yet” reviewed a confidential draft Internal Revenue Service memo, which reportedly said the agency must turn over a president’s tax returns to Congress, unless the president asserts executive privilege.

Appearing before the House Financial Services Committee Wednesday, Mnuchin said he looked at the memo for the first time “literally on the way up here.”

According to the memo, obtained by the Washington Post, disclosure of the President’s tax forms “is mandatory, requiring the Secretary to disclose returns, and return information, requested by the tax-writing Chairs.”

Mnuchin has refused to allow the IRS to turn over President Trump’s tax returns, saying Congress has no legitimate legislative purpose to see them. But the draft memo says the law “does not allow the Secretary to exercise discretion in disclosing the information provided the statutory conditions are met.”

Mnuchin said he is looking into why the draft memo had not reached his desk.

Breaking with recent precedent, Trump never disclosed his taxes as a candidate for president, claiming it was because they were under audit. But that would not prevent Trump from releasing them if he so chose. IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig testified last month that there is no rule prohibiting Trump from releasing his tax returns.

Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop asked, “If anybody’s tax return is under audit, is there a rule that would prohibit that taxpayer from releasing it?”

Rettig replied, “I think I’ve answered that question. No.”

Mnuchin also told the panel Tuesday that he has “had no conversations ever with the president or anyone in the White House about delivering the president’s tax returns to Congress.”

(Insert laugh track)

Echoing Trump, Mnuchin said voters knew the president was not releasing his tax returns and elected him anyway.

(Play it again)

The refusal to release his tax returns is one of many inquiries by congressional Democrats Trump is resisting. On Monday, a federal court ruled Trump cannot block his accounting firm from turning over his financial records, a decision Trump said he will appeal.

The issue of releasing his tax returns is also likely to be resolved by the courts.

@Greg: Without a legal need… no returns.

They’ve shown no legal need. Go “oversight” Cummings… sounds like he needs it.

@Greg: I said that but you think it carries more impact when you find it on NPRs liberal opinion site.
New Spying tape transcripts? Steel saying WaPo and NYT had copies of his homework.

@Deplorable Me, #155:

The IRS’s own legal analyst apparently concluded the law mandates the release of tax returns requested by the House Ways and Means Committee, and issued a memo to that effect.

When such a request is made, the law in question IS the legal need. Steve Mnuchin’s opinion doesn’t carry any weight whatsoever. He doesn’t get to decide.

Tuesday, July 23, 2019 – Trump sues to block New York law allowing Congress to get his state taxes; The president contends that Democrats are trying to embarrass him politically by revealing person financial info.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the House Ways and Means Committee from obtaining his state tax returns through a newly passed New York law.

The president’s lawyers said the law was nothing more than an effort to get information about his personal finances to embarrass him politically.

It’s a state law pertaining to a state revenue department, Donald, over which neither Stevie Mnuchin, the IRS, the DoJ, nor you yourself have authority or control. IRS rules and federal statutes don’t apply to state entities.

Anyway, what could there possibly be about your secret financial dealings that you might find “embarrassing”, if revealed to the American people?

@Greg: AND, of course, something that is not based on any actual suspicion of any actual crime… just fishing around.

Which is illegal. But, you know… Democrats trying to impose their police state don’t really care about what is legal or Constitutional. They’re just trying to find that magic bullet that will keep them from losing another election.

There are plenty of reasons for suspicion about possible conflicts of interest, misuse of power of office for personal/family financial advantage, and presidential vulnerability to blackmail by foreign powers in possession of damaging information that has been kept from the American people.

He should have allowed the IRS to obey the federal law that allows designated congressional committees confidential access to his tax returns. They may now get the same information via a source that is not subject to that law’s confidentiality restriction.

@Greg: No, he shouldn’t. That sets a bad precedent. Only when there is credible evidence of a possible crime should IRS records be accessed. Otherwise, we step off into the police state where the government can violate the privacy of anyone anytime they see the political need.

You know.

Like Democrats are trying to do now.

Checks and balances and oversight powers are absolutely essential to maintain the sort of government the founders intended. The financial dealings of those holding high public office should be subject to greater scrutiny than those of any private citizen. If someone cannot withstand such examination, he or she doesn’t belong in a high public office. Political party has nothing whatsoever to do with susceptibility to corruption.

@Greg:

There are plenty of reasons for suspicion about possible conflicts of interest, misuse of power of office for personal/family financial advantage, and presidential vulnerability to blackmail by foreign powers in possession of damaging information that has been kept from the American people.

And what are those reasons for suspicion that the Congressional committee has made public as their excuse for continuing harassment of the President? Why did they never look into the Clinton Crime Couple’s taxes and verify that they were correct and true? G-d knows there was enough suspicion, which is what you are basing your opinion on. Or even Obama’s foreign income. Did any foreign power buy his book which contributed to his personal income?

Since this is a Fourth Amendment issue, it will be interesting to see it fought out in court.

@Greg: Checks and balances and oversight is not only understandable but necessary. However, digging through someone’s garbage, their personal papers, their income tax returns, listening to their phone calls, reading their emails and texts looking for anything suspicious or, more to the point, USEFUL, is not “oversight”. That is police state intrusion.

Clearly, the Democrats do not think they can survive without using police state GESTAPO actions. They want to be able to identify the political target, then attack it with all the power of the federal government. That’s not how a free republic works.

Before these wormy Democrats hold Trump to a “higher standard”, they need to police their own corrupt members. The fact that they don’t, and that YOU don’t insist they do, only exposes the FACT that Democrats are merely carrying out a political operation, not “oversight”.

@Deplorable Me:

They want to be able to identify the political target, then attack it with all the power of the federal government

Straight from Communist Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals.

@retire05: And it’s not a coincidence.

@retire05, #163:

And what are those reasons for suspicion that the Congressional committee has made public as their excuse for continuing harassment of the President?

How about the way he has conducted himself throughout his entire adult life, the disregard he has so often displayed for our proven, long-time allies, and his inexplicably deferential words and behavior towards dictators, murderous regimes, and our nation’s geopolitical adversaries—at least one of which made a covert effort to aid in his election?

I call all of that that grounds for suspicion. How would you characterize it?

Then there’s the fact that he has misused his power of office by ordering his appointees to openly defy a clear and unambiguous law in an effort to prevent a specifically empowered congressional committee from examining his tax returns to see for themselves what he is or isn’t doing. If that isn’t a waving red flag when taken with all the rest, I don’t know what would be.

@Greg:

I call all of that that grounds for suspicion. How would you characterize it?

It’s called “grasping at straws” and it’s not only unconstitutional, but it’s pathetic.

“I could stand In the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”

@Greg: So, why hasn’t anyone investigated if he stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot someone? Maybe his taxes will reveal if he did or not.

Meanwhile, Hillary turned all State Department emails over to all our adversaries, but you don’t want to know about that.

@Greg:

How about the way he has conducted himself throughout his entire adult life, the disregard he has so often displayed for our proven, long-time allies, and his inexplicably deferential words and behavior towards dictators, murderous regimes, and our nation’s geopolitical adversaries—at least one of which made a covert effort to aid in his election?

Oh, Greggie Goebbels, you are so mentally deranged. You didn’t seem to worry about Clinton’s shady history, or even Obama’s who kicked his political career off in the living room of a proven terrorist. All that was A-OK with you.

Of course, our strongest allies are Great Britain and Israel. Did you see Trump’s interaction with the Queen? She truly enjoys Trump’s company and our relationship with Israel is stronger than ever.

Then there’s the fact that he has misused his power of office by ordering his appointees to openly defy a clear and unambiguous law in an effort to prevent a specifically empowered congressional committee from examining his tax returns to see for themselves what he is or isn’t doing.

The law that you are so fond of parroting has NEVER been challenged in court because it has never been exercised. That is about to change. I warrant that a badly written law by the Democrats will not supersede the U.S. Constitution.

And we know that China, North Korea and Iran must just love Trump, right?

@Greg: “I could stand In the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” Some people just need killing. Of course he said shoot not kill but WTH anyway.

Oh, Greggie Goebbels, you are so mentally deranged. You didn’t seem to worry about Clinton’s shady history, or even Obama’s who kicked his political career off in the living room of a proven terrorist.

You’re the one who helped put a dangerous and corrupt presidential imposture in the White House, lady. Not me. The Obama administration wasn’t a non-stop three-ring circus featuring multiple simultaneous scandals. Impropriety never got so normal that something like the Benson, Arizona pay for play story doesn’t even make the national news. Obama didn’t need to keep a full-time bag man to make secret payoffs to porn stars and solve other assorted problems.

You really should cease making comparisons with the Obama administration. Someone might stop and actually think about it.

@retire05: You simply provide more proof that Greg and other liberals don’t care about oversight, the Constitution, laws, justice or facts. They only care about political power and creating a police state with which they can destroy their political opponents.

@Greg: I guess you missed the announcement of the results; Hillary lost.

Congressional oversight requires that Congress be able to see. It doesn’t work when they’ve been blindfolded. This should be obvious.

@Greg: They have to have a reasonable reason to look. If you were familiar with the Constitution, THAT would be obvious.

@Greg:

You’re the one who helped put a dangerous and corrupt presidential imposture in the White House, lady. Not me.

Wrong. I didn’t vote for either Clinton.

The Obama administration wasn’t a non-stop three-ring circus featuring multiple simultaneous scandals

That has to be the funniest thing you have ever said.

You really are an idiot.

@retire05: Greg thinks just because the liberal media doesn’t cover a scandal, Fast and Furious, Beer Summit, Obamacare, Obamacare website, IRS targeting, Benghazi, Office of Budget and Management, Deepwater Horizon, ISIS, Hillary’s emails, Uranium One, spying on journalists, interfering in foreign elections, spying on Trump’s campaign never happened.

What I know is that congressional republicans hellbent on destroying Barack Obama never managed to come up with diddly squat, and that Obama didn’t have to obstruct justice, order his underlings to break laws, slander genuine patriots, sue everybody under the sun, or secretly pay off porn stars to prevent it.

If you judged Donald Trump by the same hypercritical standards you applied to Obama and Clinton for years on end, the guy would be run out of his rally stadium on a rail. And that is an honest-to-God fact.

@Greg:

What I know is that congressional republicans hellbent on destroying Barack Obama never managed to come up with diddly squat,

What I know is that when Congress demanded all the documents on Fast and Furious the Obama administration refused to comply with those legal demands.

Did you have a problem with that Greggie Goebbels? Nope.

@Greg: Well, he stonewalled the Fast and Furious hearings, claiming executive privilege though he claimed to have no knowledge of it. We found beyond any doubt that he and his entire administration lied about Benghazi. We found that the IRS, indeed, illegally targeted conservatives and that the FBI conducted NO investigation. We know Holder and Hillary, both with knowledge of Russian control of Uranium One, OK’d the sale. We know Obama knew of Hillary’s secret, private, unsecured server and used an alias to communicate on it. We know Obama illegally spied on Trump’s campaign.

Oh, we’ve found out plenty. Beyond any possible doubt Obama was an anti-American scumbag.

Meanwhile you have investigated, investigated, investigated and investigated Trump and can find NOTHING. All you have is your prejudices and crybaby hatred because Hillary lost.

@retire05, #180:

I had a problem with Darrell Issa. I had a problem with the NRA lobbying for Eric Holder to be held in contempt. And I’ll repeat the following, since you seem to have missed it in your eagerness to throw a small hissy fit about something now years in the past:

If you judged Donald Trump by the same hypercritical standards you applied to Obama and Clinton for years on end, the guy would be run out of his rally stadium on a rail. And that is an honest-to-God fact.

In the present, we have Robert Mueller testifying before Congress tomorrow. It could be interesting. Hopefully, consequential.

(By the way, in 2012 the DoJ’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, released his findings concerning Fast and Furious. He found no evidence that higher level officials at the DoJ—including Eric Holder—had known anything about the gunwalking tactic. 14 lower level officials were cited for their own poor judgements and failures to inform their superiors of problems with the program. )

@Greg: Oh my not cited were the fired? There were high powered rifles sold by the government to cartels and terrorists, who was fired who went to jail? A border guard was murdered by one of those weapons, one of those weapons was used in a slaughter in a nightclub in Paris. OOoooo they were cited. If what you said was true why the executive privilege move? Why was Holder the first AG ever held in contempt?

@kitt, #183:

An IG only conducts an investigation and issues a report of the findings. It’s up to a cited person’s administrative superiors to determine and take whatever corrective or disciplinary actions might follow. That could include reassignment, demotions, forfeiture of pay, or firing.

Why was Holder the first AG ever held in contempt?

The number of congressional representatives who were beholden to the NRA and the NRA’s lobbying campaign to have Holder held in contempt might have had something to do with it. Their lobbyists let it be known that future political endorsements could depend on how each representative weighed in on the contempt vote.

@Greg: His refusal to appear had nothing to do with it?
Holder wasnt their supervisor? Barry wasnt their supervisor?
Those guns got into the hands of terrorists someone should have been more than simply cited do you think so too?

@Greg:

I had a problem with Darrell Issa. I had a problem with the NRA lobbying for Eric Holder to be held in contempt.

But no problem with Holder running guns to Mexican drug cartels, hundreds of Mexican citizens have been killed with those guns and at least two Americans, then both he and Obama lying about it. Well, that pretty much says it all. Holder and Obama have YET to cooperate with any investigations.

@kitt:

Why was Holder the first AG ever held in contempt?

He was held in contempt because he would not cooperate with the investigation. Then, though Obama said he knew nothing of the gun running, he threw the protective blanket of executive privilege over himself and Holder. I don’t think the NRA had anything to do with that, do you?

It didn’t take Nadler long to lie; Trump never “ordered” anyone to “fire” Mueller. After a year and a half of this nonsense, Trump asked his attorney to see if firing Mueller was possible. Obviously, it never happened. But, Nadler is a liar so he has to lie.

Then, in Mueller’s opening statement, Mueller described his team of 99% rabid Democrats, some of which were fired, not for being biased, but because their bias was exposed, as having “integrity”. Obviously, Mueller is a bigoted liar.

Wow. Mueller is totally confused. He finds himself in the same position he placed most of his victims; being asked questions that the person asking the questions has a transcript of the facts and if his answer deviates from documentation, he could be charged with perjury!

@Deplorable Me: The NRA is the boogeyman, the organization blamed for mass shootings by ill informed children. Any organization standing up for a constitutional right must be despised and demonized by the NWO Socialist Democrat (commies)machine. The go after Nationalists by adding “White” to the title cause they know only “White” people love the country(the racists) they are demonizing patriotism itself. Its all part of a Marxist-Leninist ideology.
Its ok to be any race, even caucasian.
Its ok to love the republic and its flag.
Its NOT ok for our representatives to pick only the laws they like to enforce, its ok to challenge the constitutionality of a law, especially if there are conflicting laws in our code.

What is clear here is that Democrats are seeking sound-bite moments without regard for the facts. It is also clear that Mueller is unfamiliar with what is in “his” report; he acts like he has been hit over the head with a heavy object.

If there was anything within the report that warranted the impeachment of Trump, would the impeachment resolution of just last week have been defeated?

Wasteful theater. Bad theater at that.

July 30, 2019 – Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

SACRAMENTO — President Trump will be ineligible for California’s primary ballot next year unless he discloses his tax returns under a state law that immediately took effect Tuesday, an unprecedented mandate that is almost certain to spark a high-profile court fight and might encourage other states to adopt their own unconventional rules for presidential candidates.

The law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on his final day to take action and passed on a strict party-line vote in the Legislature, requires all presidential candidates to submit five years of income tax filings. They must do so by late November in order to secure a spot on California’s presidential primary ballot in March. State elections officials will post the financial documents online, although certain private information must first be redacted.

It will be interesting to see on what basis the law is challenged in court, since it is applicable equally to all presidential candidates. It these days of emerging plutocracy, one thing is certain: it most definitely will be challenged.

@Greg: Just Presidential not House or Senate? Thats racist and sexist!
Such TDS the private information really has the libs thongs in a knot.

@kitt:

Someone needs to buy those elected idiots in California, and New York, a 50 cent pocket Constitution and make them read it.

States do not have the authority to add to the Constitutional requirements to run for President, nor do they have the authority to subtract from the Constitutional requirements to run for President.

Wonder how long it will take a judge to laugh them out of his court room. Oh, that’s right, it’s California. Now we know why that state is rapidly on its way to becoming Baltimore.

@Greg: No law requires tax returns be released. This is nothing but another liberal poll tax to limit the choices votes have. They’ve already implemented widespread voter fraud, this is nothing but an extension of that. Of course, California is o far gone and totally liberal that this of little consequence to anyone.

@kitt: This is how much of an existential threat Trump is to liberalism and establishment politics. The left pass laws exclusively targeting Trump. Again, just the Democrats dusting off their old Jim Crow playbook.

I’d like to see Texas pass a law that no candidate can be on the ballot unless they file an affidavit avowing to support the Constitution and denounce open borders, illegal immigration and illegal immigrants.

@retire05: That might require a constitutional amendment, no hope of winning Crazyfornia anyway.

@retire05, #191:

Someone needs to buy those elected idiots in California, and New York, a 50 cent pocket Constitution and make them read it.

Maybe you should buy yourself one. Article I, Section 4 gives the individual states regulatory authority over the times, places, and manner of holding federal elections within their governmental jurisdictions. A wide range of state regulatory powers pertaining to elections goes along with that. You should realize this, since republicans have used their state powers so effectively in their efforts to reduce the count of votes for Democratic Party candidates.

The states can and do set their own requirements regarding primary election requirements for candidates who wish to appear on their state ballots, which are entirely valid so long as they don’t violate other constitutional provisions. Don’t bother citing the Fourth Amendment on this one. Submitting your tax returns remains entirely voluntarily. You only have to do so if you want your name on the primary ballot.

@Greg:

Article I, Section 4 gives the individual states regulatory authority over the times, places, and manner of holding federal elections within their governmental jurisdictions.

There is no provision for the requirements for federal office in Article I, Section IV. Just time, place and manner of holding federal elections.

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution

Jeeze, your stupid.

@retire05, #195:

There is no provision for the requirements for federal office in Article I, Section IV. Just time, place and manner of holding federal elections.

That is correct. If there were such a constitutional provision, it would have taken authority and control over such election-related matters away from the individual states and given them to the federal government. The article and section, by intention, does the exact opposite.

@Greg:

OK, idiot, show where Article I, Section IV lays out the requirements to be POTUS.

Jeeze, you’re stupid.

@retire05, #197:

Jeeze, you’re stupid.

You know, you keep saying stuff like that, but everything I observe suggests you just might not be all that smart yourself. Or maybe your native ability to think clearly is trumped by an even greater need to think you’re always right about everything. (Pun intended.)

As a matter of constitutional law, the states have regulatory authority over the election process and related procedural matters within their own borders. Among other things, they are responsible for establishing the requirements for inclusion on their own primary ballot. Such requirements vary from state to state.

That fact has just become inconvenient. Sorry about that. Take it up with the court. But first consider the extent to which republican state legislatures have attempted to use that authority to the republican advantage—shortening early voting time frames and polling place hours, ending Sunday voting, requiring students to return to their home locations to vote, etc. Want to kick the props out from under all of that? Have at it.

@Greg:

maybe your native ability to think clearly is trumped by an even greater need to think you’re always right about everything

I’m not always rights but you’re always wrong.

As a matter of constitutional law,

Oh, so now you’re a Constitutional scholar? Add that to the short list of the funniest things you have ever said.

the states have regulatory authority over the election process and related procedural matters within their own borders.

Read what you said, Greggie Goebbels. States have authority over their own election process. PROCESS, Greggie Goebbels, PROCESS.

Among other things, they are responsible for establishing the requirements for inclusion on their own primary ballot. Such vary from state to state.

Only as related to STATE election requirements, such as having to live in the district that you are running for State Legislature. Requirements for federal legislative office are laid out in clear concise English in Article I, Section II of the U.S. Constitution. No state has the authority to impose stricter or lessened restrictions. For example, a state cannot make a law saying that a Federal Congressman or Senator only has to be 21 years old.

So don’t come back at me with your clap-trap as if you are some kind of Constitutional scholar when you clearly don’t even understand the words, or the meaning, of the U.S. Constitution.

@retire05, #199:

Oh, so now you’re a Constitutional scholar?

No. The point I was making is that you sure as hell aren’t.

Most people understand that states have the constitutional authority to regulate the elections that occur within their own borders. As a consequence, states can and do have differing requirements that must be met in order for a candidate’s name to appear on their ballots for presidential primary elections.

No state has the authority to impose stricter or lessened restrictions.

Sorry. Wrong. They can and do. There’s significant variation on a lot of points. They don’t even all have the same sort of primaries. There are open primaries, closed primaries, semi-closed primaries, and nominating caucuses. There are variations in how much support you have to demonstrate to have your name appear—signature requirements. There are varying time frames for requirements to be met. Some states ban candidates who have failed to achieve a sought for party nomination from appearing as independents; others don’t.

There’s nothing that says a state can’t require financial disclosure to qualify for a place on their primary ballot.