1 posted on
12/31/2023 8:27:55 AM PST by
davikkm
To: davikkm
“Despite valid privacy concerns.” Actually, real privacy concerns!
2 posted on
12/31/2023 8:31:02 AM PST by
Oystir
To: davikkm
That site doesn’t tell you much.
It’s just vague stuff on a topic.
4 posted on
12/31/2023 8:35:16 AM PST by
ConservativeMind
(Trump: Befuddling Democrats, Republicans, and the Media for the benefit of the US and all mankind.)
To: davikkm
The concept is good. But the application with law is fraught with danger.
The are other methods to achieve the goal. But passing a law is easier than those options.
6 posted on
12/31/2023 8:41:37 AM PST by
PeterPrinciple
(Thinking Caps are no longer being issued but there must be a warehouse full of them somewhere.)
To: davikkm
When you take public office for the purpose of representing the people who elected you to represent them, I think it comes with the territory that there is going to be a degree of loss of privacy.
7 posted on
12/31/2023 8:44:45 AM PST by
metmom
(He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus…)
To: davikkm
I thought that there was something in that pesky constitution thingie about being secure in your papers?
10 posted on
12/31/2023 8:50:19 AM PST by
joe fonebone
(And the people said NO! The End)
To: davikkm
Politicians are corrupt and should be exposed and prosecuted for their corruption.
No way should ANY politicians get rich in office as that is bribery or insider trading.
12 posted on
12/31/2023 9:01:14 AM PST by
CodeToad
(Rule #1: The elites want you dead.)
To: davikkm
In my town, elected officials are all volunteers and don't get paid a penny for their efforts.
Nobody with half a brain would do that job if it required an onerous and intrusive financial reporting process.
17 posted on
12/31/2023 9:24:53 AM PST by
Alberta's Child
(If something in government doesn’t make sense, you can be sure it makes dollars.)
To: davikkm
At the very least, people running for office should have to state their net worth at election & then provide FULL TRANSPARENCY on all gains while in office.
I’ve always believed legislators should not be allowed to own individual stocks while in office. Move all to a general mutual fund & leave it there until you’re out of office. Of course, they may still benefit family members with their in-office activities. Hard to do something about that.
21 posted on
12/31/2023 10:20:28 AM PST by
Twotone
(I used to worry there'd be a civil war. Now I worry there won't be. - Mark Steyn)
To: davikkm
If they’re very corrupt they learned a long time ago how to avoid being discovered. The worst ones will be fine. The small-potatoes grifters will be found out.
23 posted on
12/31/2023 10:28:40 AM PST by
MayflowerMadam
("A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once.")
To: davikkm
Requiring financial disclosures through Form 6 can be a powerful tool in enhancing transparency and accountability.
Democrats will be looking like rats deserting a sinking ship Pelosi and her old man just make a deal in the market wonder if she will bail.
37 posted on
12/31/2023 2:23:50 PM PST by
Vaduz
To: davikkm
The Sunshine State already has the Sunshine Law. This goes waaaayyyy beyond that and certainly gets into the privacy of these individuals. Legislators need to rethink this horrible legislation. JMO
46 posted on
12/31/2023 10:27:36 PM PST by
Road Warrior ‘04
(BOYCOTT Anheuser Busch, the NFL, MLB, NBA, NASCAR & Faux Snooze! Molon Labe! Oathkeeper! )
To: davikkm
Headline is total BS.
Why should anyone have to declare an asset valued over $1000?
So I would have to declare guns, boat , riding lawnmower and jewelry on a public Government form ?
48 posted on
01/01/2024 4:49:39 AM PST by
sausageseller
(If you want to cut your own throat, don't come to me for a bandage. M, Thatcher)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson