NYT: Show Us the Money

[adabfree]

Published: February 15, 2008

As the presidential campaign narrows and its costs skyrocket, detailed disclosure of financial resources becomes ever more important. Of the leading contenders, so far, only Senator Barack Obama has released his full income-tax returns — a level of disclosure once routine for candidates after the political corruption of Watergate.

Release of the tax returns should not be made conditional on winning the nomination, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has made it. Both Senator John McCain, the Republican front-runner, and she owe it to their parties and to voters to promptly make available their Internal Revenue Service filings, and to respond to any questions about them. It is true that as senators, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain are required to file financial disclosure forms. But those forms present only general parameters of family financial resources, not the detail available on tax returns.

The need for greater transparency regarding the income and overall financial dealings of candidates and their spouses was underscored by Mrs. Clinton’s recent decision to make a $5 million loan to her campaign. Such borrowing is a permitted practice under the campaign laws. But the campaign said the money came from her share of the Clintons’ joint resources, and that calls attention to the lack of information about their family finances. As a former president, Bill Clinton has been making millions annually giving speeches and traveling the globe. What is publicly known about his business dealings is sketchy, and clearer disclosure of them is required to reassure voters that Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy is unencumbered by hidden entanglements.

In the same spirit, the Clintons are obliged to make prompt disclosure of the major donors who have been backing the former president’s library and foundation. It is not even clear whether Mr. Clinton would disclose his library’s donors if his wife won the White House.

Likewise, Senator McCain has yet to release his tax returns, a strange omission for a candidate with a record of supporting strong government ethics measures. A spokesman for Mr. McCain raises the prospect that he may hold back his tax returns through the fall campaign, saying that he would not decide whether to release them until he officially is the Republican nominee. That would neatly thwart the party-vetting process, even if he does finally make the returns public. In the meantime, questions are arising about the senator’s fund-raising as it relates to his position as the former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and its regulatory powers over business.

Participation in big-money politics inevitably runs the risk of encountering deep-pocketed benefactors who can become back-slapping embarrassments. Mr. McCain learned that lesson when he was caught up in the Keating Five scandal in the 1980s. The Clintons have also learned this lesson across the years, just as Senator Barack Obama rues what he calls “boneheaded” dealings with Antoin Rezko, a Chicago businessman indicted last fall for fraud and influence peddling.

Mr. Obama felt obliged to return $150,000 in Rezko donations. Critics question why the senator had a favorable land deal with Mr. Rezko even after reports emerged of a federal investigation into Mr. Rezko’s affairs.

The reluctance of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain to reveal more about their finances ill-serves voters and the nominating process of both parties. It also sets a terrible precedent for future campaigns for important posts at the national and state level.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri1.html?hp