At the heart of the resolution, the public's right to know needs be valued above the right to privacy for candidates. Ultimately, the matter boils down to the right to vote for the public. Citizens in a democracy need to have an adequate amount of information in order to make an informed decision on who they want to vote for. Supporters of a "right to know" typically contend that informed voting decisions are crucial to the democratic process and political participation on a variety of fronts.
For instance, many contend that they have the "right to know" information about who has contributed to a political campaign. Following the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) Supreme Court ruling, political action committees (PACs) and super political action committees (Super PACS) have substantially greater ability to donate to candidates. Supporters of the "right to know" argue that knowing contribution information helps keep politicians accountable, prevents them from being "bought out" by corporations, and allows them to be punished by voters if they accept unethical campaign contributions while running for office.
In addition, super PAC's can accept unlimited contributions but only need donor information quarterly or semi-annually, depending on the election year at hand. Thus, the identity of many wealthy donors remains anonymous until months after the contributions were made. At the end of the day, the sole concern of the government should be to increase its political legitimacy. In order to maximize this, if donors are forced to not reveal their identities to political candidates, then monetary influence will be avoided. The tendency of candidates is to favor wealthy donors, thus forcing them to change their image based on what the donor wants. To avoid this, super PAC's and other large donor's identities should remain anonymous to political candidates at hand.
Other arguments used by those in the "right to know" camp contend that it is important to know details about a candidate's personal life, particularly if they have histories of inappropriate or unethical behavior.
Instances of candidates' misbehavior in the past may influence the public's voting decisions solely because a candidate's actions can determine their overall character and morals.
The allegation at hand however, must reveal a substantial character defect that is relevant to the job. For example, in the Brett Kavanaugh case, the element of prior sexual misconduct revealed a clear flaw in his character. The public was hasty to have a man in office that was accused of a matter like this, and rightfully so. This #MeToo movement created a flurry of resignations around the country that caused a round of special elections — however, new candidates were still reluctant to put sexual abuse front and center in their campaigns.
Tax records can also reveal possible conflicts of interests within candidates. Beginning with Richard Nixon in 1952, most presidential and vice-presidential candidates have released at least some of their tax returns. Since the 1970s, the practice has become standard. Hillary Clinton released the last eight years of her tax records promptly, and other candidates did as well. Tax returns can help paint a clearer picture of a candidate's financial affairs, such as their yearly income, how much the candidate payed in taxes, real estate taxes, and to whom the candidate owes money.
This makes disclosure of income tax returns especially important in order to shed light on possible areas of conflict. Tax returns reveal a substantial portion of the character of the candidate. Information like their debts, businesses, and businesses can help the public understand the state of those affairs and the candidate's overall responsibility related to finances.
Candidates have a moral obligation to disclose to the public in order to reduce political corruption, allow voters to elect prepared candidates, and hold themselves accountable for their personal behavior in order to allow the public to make an informed voting decision. The requirement is accountability. Citizens should be able to hold public officials accountable for their decisions and policies, and therefore, citizens must have information that would enable them to judge how well officials are doing or are likely to do their job.
