It's called it divestiture. It's also being ethical. In this case it is his spouse's wealth, not his. This case is a probably first, where the spouse brings obscene amounts of money into the marriage.
So, is this pile of money, which admittedly belongs to the spouse, a valid reason for Kerry to skirt the requirement of divestiture?
Legally? yes it is, but ethically? no. It's going to leave a cloud over his head if he gets elected.
It's just the same with the form 180 that he refuses to sign. The issue is "trust me" when we all know that this is not a sound basis for a politician's relationship wehn it comes to money.
"Trust but Verify" seems more appropriate here.
Are you going to vote for Kerry if you can "verify"?