58 Comments - NIU Grad - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 1:53 pm: Conservative boomers are both hyper-obsessed about their own privacy as public figures and complaining vaguely about corruption. Is Bailey afraid that we’d see how much money he has…or how little? - Shark Sandwich - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 1:56 pm: Tax returns AND credit report - show us you can handle money if you want the reins for everyone else’s. Add in a monthly drug test if they insist on it for government aid recipients. “You first, champ.” - Streator Curmudgeon - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:02 pm: Well, if you’re going after the Trump base, you can refuse to release your income tax returns, as Trump did. But, I think a lot of voters would naturally ask, “What does he (or she) have to hide?” - Unionman - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:03 pm: The ultimate question is not what the tax returns say, but rather who your income comes from. - Homebody - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:03 pm: I think the bigger issue is that we need to stop relying on “norms” and “customs.” Disclosures either need to be mandatory, or people should stop talking about them. Otherwise it just plays into the hands of the people who love to complain about what one side is doing, but never follow through when they are asked whether they will do it too. (For the record I voted yes.) - illini - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:04 pm: Paul Simon, our late Senator, began making his tax returns public when he was a junior member of the General Assembly. He was far ahead of his time in this regards. And far more principled than many politicians today. - Louis G Atsaves - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:04 pm: Voted no across the board. Sorry, candidates come in for enough scrutiny. The Tax Return is supposed to be between the Government and the Individual only. - Mason born - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:13 pm: Voted Yes but I could settle for a 3rd entity listing sources of Income and Major expenses per candidate. It doesn’t bother me if Bailey or Pritzker make more cash then i do, they do, but it’d be nice to see where they make that cash. Oppo research being slanted it’d be nice to see a less biased view. - Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:15 pm: Yes, everyone. Citizens deserve to see where their elected officials’ money is coming from. Poor Darren must be embarrassed by his government handouts. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:16 pm: Voted yes, on down to “counties” When is transparency bad? - Jocko - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:16 pm: ==candidates come in for enough scrutiny.== I’m sure it was just coincidence that Rauner held a majority share in Sterigenics and slow walked the Illnois EPA report. - Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:19 pm: Tax returns for all candidates … and all supporting forms. - Interim Retiree - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:20 pm: I voted yes for statewide, legislative & Judicial. As Unionman said, where does the income comes from. As one that had his salary plastered yearly in the local newspaper, it WAS the people’s right to know what my salary & benefits were - they were paying it thru taxes. - East of the Lake - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:21 pm: I voted no, but that does not mean I can’t use a refusal to release as a reason to not vote for someone. - Ron Burgundy - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:21 pm: Voted Yes for above local. Seems maybe Sen. Bailey, champion of the common person, might not want people to know he isn’t so common and how much of that is from government largesse. - Vote Quimby - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:22 pm: ==Paul Simon…And far more principled than many politicians today.== No truer words have I read on this blog. - Arsenal - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:24 pm: Voted Yes- tho once Trump was elected after playing games with his taxes, I knew that this was a dying practice. I’m pretty sure Pritzker played some games on them, too. I said statewide, legislative, and judicial candidates should release them. I probably think the logic holds for all local candidates, too, but I gave ‘em a break because it’s so hard to recruit for those races. - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:24 pm: Voted yes on first section. Voted all for second section. Reasoning behind all of the votes is the same. If you want to be a public official and act in a capacity representing the public, then the details of what you are should be available to the public. It’s also a very good check to verify the claims of anyone running for office. It’s easy, and quite legal, to lie on the campaign trail. It’s significantly less legal to lie on your tax return. I want to see if what you say lines up with what you do, because that’s an excellent way for me to find out if you have integrity in your everyday life, and if I would want you representing me in an official capacity. Lets be honest too. Most people aren’t even going to take the time to read them, and if you are being consistent between what you say and what is on your taxes, nobody will even care if they do read them. It could even be argued that not releasing tax returns is a deliberate choice because it provides opportunity for your name to be in news cycles, leveraging the news media for no-cost exposure of your campaign. Nobody is going to write a boring news story about you or pay attention to you if your tax returns are boring and match what you publicly state. But if you don’t release your taxes, that can lead to many stories speculating about you, with your name consistently showing up in the news. Requiring a release of tax returns would also eliminate such a situation of not releasing tax returns being used as a campaign strategy. The state can’t pass a law preventing speech, but it can pass a law to create a new situation where that speech becomes meaningless. I can’t think of any downsides, even if the upsides are rather minimal and mostly procedural. It’s still an upside. - SWSider - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:25 pm: One of the biggest benefits of this law is that it would force pols who might have off the book income, or, say, a no-show job to decide what’s really worth it. - AD - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:25 pm: Voted no. I’m a CPA and tax returns don’t really tell you as much as people think and until Congress changes the laws, I don’t think the taxpayer who is legally paying less in taxes should be vilified because their CPA knows the laws. If anything, a more detailed Statement of Economic Interest would be better. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:26 pm: If you want to be a private citizen, your tax records are no business of mine. If you want to be a public citizen and work for the people, I’m a gonna need to see what’s in those records. I want to know where your income comes from. In public life, most of your rhetoric will be self-serving. I think it’s relevant to know you are motivated by politics or potential financial gain. Anyone who won’t disclose income and sources isn’t a serious candidate. - thoughts matter - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:27 pm: Given the grief that our governor is being given over his Blind Trust, I don’t believe Bailey doesn’t care where other candidates/officials get their money. I want to know where their income comes from, right down to the individual stocks they hold. That’s just as much an influence on them as who contributes to their campaign. If he’s not willing to tell me, then I’m very leery of his motives in running for office, - New Day - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:28 pm: Voted yes but I think it stops at statewide and legislative. Maybe judicial too. It’s way too much to ask of a candidate for a town council, particularly an unpaid one. You will discourage good people from running. - Arsenal - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:31 pm: == If anything, a more detailed Statement of Economic Interest would be better. == Yeah, I’d be fine with that, too. - FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:31 pm: I voted no. I would rather know their individual investments and what stocks they hold. That would be more telling of their interests and how they may craft legislation. - Back to the Future - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:31 pm: Voted yes on Statewide candidates. In light of how little Pritzker, like Trump, pays in taxes it should be a requirement that the tax returns be fully disclosed. Really have no patience for these Wizards of Tax Avoidance. The Pritzker “blind trust” nonsense only provides more support for disclosure. Voters should take into account the fight Pritzker puts up on transparency when they cast their ballots. - A - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:32 pm: If privacy is your thing do not work at a job paid for with public money. All of us public workers have our “private” financials plastered across newspaper columns. Why some but not others? - Not a Superstar - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:32 pm: Votes yes for Statewide, Legislative and Judicial. I don’t want to make it too difficult to run for local office, but I am torn in this era of wealthy people running for office. OW asked when transparency is bad. I think it’s bad when you’re trying to hide something. - Benjamin - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:36 pm: Voted yes on the first poll, and for the state offices only on the second. Realistically, the conflicts of interest most local offices might have are low-stakes enough that it probably isn’t worth it to mandate releasing tax returns for local offices statewide, though I could see a big county like Cook making their own mandate. - Cal Stone - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:37 pm: More transparency please and less dark money. This applies both Rep. and Dem. - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:39 pm: ===== If anything, a more detailed Statement of Economic Interest would be better. == Same here. If you are involved in an RFP you almost always have to disclose any interest you might have in potential bidders–with state wide and probably Reps and Senators the area is broad enough to require it up front. - Cal Stone - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:41 pm: Sorry, voted yes for each. - My 2 cents - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:43 pm: I voted no. Running for public office should not deprive a person of their right to privacy. If someone wants to share that information, great. And agree a more robust Statement of Economic Interest would be good. Americans in general are way too interested in other people’s finances. - Trying to be Rational - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:45 pm: It is more important to require disclosures by local pols. At higher levels there are enough competing interests that bad behavior is likely to be revealed (oppo research to start with as well as news organizations). But locally, the mandatory disclosures are about the only way to get to the information. - illinifan - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:47 pm: Voted yes on all. Public officials at any level should be held to a higher standard. It may also weed out some fly by nights. When I worked for the state my salary was publicly posted and now my pension can be found. So basically if you looked at those you would know my tax return. - Chuck - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:48 pm: Having served in two of those capacities, it should be required if there’s any sort of significant salary and benefits. - Aaron B - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:53 pm: Voted yes for all. If you want to be in charge of making decisions about how my tax money is spent then I want to be able to see more about you than whatever lies are coming out of your mouth. I’m tired of depending on the honor system for people to disclose this type of information. Some people cannot be trusted to self disclose this sort of information so non-mandated disclosure just isn’t good enough. - Perrid - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 2:54 pm: Elected officials should be pretty open about their finances to make sure no funny business is going on. All the way down to school boards or townships. - thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 3:01 pm: Required by law: No. Every person should have the right to privacy, and everyone should have the right to run for office without giving up their other rights. Required by voters: If that is what you need to feel better about your vote, have at it. I personally think there are more pressing issues, and fundamental structural problems with our FPTP, winner takes all, restricted ballot access, gerrymandered election system. - Suburbanon - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 3:04 pm: Judges at all levels should disclose. Especially in civil court. Too many opportunities for conflicts of interest. Local NO. Statewide YES. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 3:06 pm: Voted yes, for statewide. Bailey is part of the far right that is encouraging people to FOIA the living daylights out of schools as a form of harassment. Just like his lawyer Devore, they cannot handle the heat when it is directed at them. =I feel that that’s my business, it’s my private business.= Your business receives millions in public money. It is public business. - Norseman - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 3:06 pm: Yes. Excluding on the local offices. If the GOP really cared about corruption, they would get on board with this requirement. Of course, they don’t in principle. It’s only a rhetorical point to be used against the Dems. - Ryan - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 3:15 pm: Considering the amount he’s received in farm subsidies and PPP loans (that have been forgiven) it sure is the public’s business, Darren. - Commissar Gritty - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 3:15 pm: My explanation for voting no was that I accidentally hit no and meant to vote yes. - Politix - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 3:19 pm: No on local offices. Many are volunteer jobs. - Nuke The Whales - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 3:38 pm: I voted statewide and judicial. This might be the first time in my life I’m almost sympathetic to not having to release your tax returns. As to why I didn’t vote legislative. It is hard enough to convince good people to run in these times of threats and inansity, but then add having to release X years of tax returns and open a lot of your personal finances to the general public for a state rep seat where you are running for a party’s nomination and you might become 1 of 118 in one half of a branch of government? - Skirmisher - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 3:45 pm: I have nothing I am ashamed of reporting in my tax returns and neither should anyone else, especially elected officials. - Morty - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 3:52 pm: LOL- I wonder why - Crash - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 4:12 pm: The returns go to any conflicts that the person may has. I voted yes and for all, but at the same time if there was a requirement that all people who win elections had to disclose, I would be OK with that as a compromise. This goes beyond merely election points. It goes to the integrity of the system. - Been There - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 5:37 pm: I think it is a legitimate political hit to go after a candidate that doesnt release them. But I don’t think it should be a required by the state. That just goes too far. I am not a big fan of disallowing anyone from running for any office. - JLW - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 6:32 pm: I just got finished with the revised Statement of Economic Interest the legislature has required this year for many government employees to disclose all assets over $10,000. No one asked if I had any right to privacy. Hard to have any sympathy for that argument - JLW - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 6:32 pm: I just got finished with the revised Statement of Economic Interest the legislature has required this year for many government employees to disclose all assets over $10,000. No one asked if I had any right to privacy. Hard to have any sympathy for that argument. - LaSalle County - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 7:04 pm: Credit score and credit report tell More about a person than a tax return - Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 7:38 pm: I voted yes, and then voted yes for all the levels office. I believe in transparency in government and releasing tax returns to the public is the best way of demonstrating how much income you have and where it is coming from. We have created a significant number of rules and requirements for our public and elected officials but releasing their tax return is an effective means to allow the public to discuss whether or not those requirements are being met. If someone is embarrassed about what’s in their tax return they should not be running for office. Bailey doesn’t want to release his tax returns because he is relying on people who support him continuing to be unaware of what exactly he means when he claims he is a “farmer.” - Logic not emotion - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 9:04 pm: Tough call. I am in favor of a more detailed economic interest statement. I think disclosing tax returns should be limited to just positions of significant influence. Maybe not every legislator; but committee leaders, party leadership, state officers. Would be fine if returns not released to public but to ethics board that reviews and summarizes. There is a reason a lot of congressmen leave congress far wealthier than their salary would indicate. Not sure an annual tax return or an annual economic interest statement would catch insider trading and etc though. I sometimes wonder how blind, blind trust are. - AD - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 10:46 pm: === I am not a big fan of disallowing anyone from running for any office.=== Rod, is that you? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 2, 22 @ 11:35 pm: I voted yes (for statewide, legislative, judicial), but don’t feel that strongly about it. My instinct is for transparency, and I think talking openly about one’s income, assets, and taxes is better than a great secrecy about such things. Perhaps I feel most that wealthier elected leaders should be shown to be paying their fair share of taxes. - Flexible One - Thursday, Mar 3, 22 @ 12:41 am: Reporting may prevent many quality candidates from running for office. If someone has a number of businesses and files a highly detailed tax report, anyone can easily pick apart the details and make that tax filer appear to be hiding something. Some may still run but we will loose some folks that would be excellent public servants. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.