Mrs. McCain's Taxes

John McCain's campaign released the Senators tax returns, but with a catch -- we don't get to see Mrs. McCain's taxes, even though she's an extremely wealthy heiress who actually has the bulk of the family's money. That's a preposterous dodge, but it's actually somewhat less preposterous than the official rationale for the dodge: "In the interest of protecting the privacy of her children, Mrs. McCain will not be releasing her personal tax returns."

What could that possibly mean? Suppose the Clintons tried to use Chelsea's privacy as an excuse not to release their financial information -- people would have laughed. Then screamed.

Comments

Won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!

Posted by Tony | April 18, 2008 4:35 PM

How dare you?! John McCain was involved in a scandal and learned his lesson and became St. John McCain because he repented. Plus, he likes to give the press donuts, and they return the favor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402633_pf.html

Posted by David | April 18, 2008 4:45 PM

"Extremely wealthy?" I'd call being worth allegedly over $100M, filthy rich!!!

Posted by JR | April 18, 2008 4:49 PM

I've never really understood why there's so much concern about tax returns. Seems like a fairly pointless distratction - not sure why some folks care as much as they do.

Posted by BFR | April 18, 2008 4:49 PM

It is BS, but here is the likely basis. I would expect that Mrs. McCain's tax return would reveal that there are significant trusts that have been set up in favor of the children. I do not know whether the return would indicate how much income was generated by those trusts (it depends on how the control of the trust was set up).

Posted by Ephus | April 18, 2008 4:53 PM

BFR:

good point. one would think that presidential candidates would just assume this is something they have to do, that there will be a story or two about it if they do and then nobody will care, but that if they hold back stuff it will bite them. Unless the candidate is St. John McCain. Then the media will cover for him.

Posted by David | April 18, 2008 4:53 PM

I've never really understood why there's so much concern about tax returns. Seems like a fairly pointless distratction - not sure why some folks care as much as they do.

Posted by BFR | April 18, 2008 4:56 PM

plus the fact that they have kids together makes it even MORE relevant.

He is more likely to be enticed to do things that increase the value of her assets if he knows it is going to go to his kids in the end.

Posted by yep | April 18, 2008 4:56 PM

Suppose the Clintons tried to use Chelsea's privacy as an excuse not to release their financial information....

IOKIYAR.

Posted by Thlayli | April 18, 2008 4:58 PM

In a gesture of good will, Cindy McCain should announce that she's donating $1,000,000 to Trinity Church for its outreach programs, and another $10,000,000 to those veterans of the Iraq War and their loved ones who've been unable to resume normal lives due to traumatic injuries. Then, announce that she'll take it easy on the eye shadow and mascara and get her teeth fixed. She looks more like a gussied-up cadaver every day.

Posted by Trevor | April 18, 2008 4:59 PM

Just heard the summary on NPR. Mentions Cindy McCain's stuff at the end. But before that says that McCain earned less than Obama--which is true if you ignore Cindy.

Posted by david | April 18, 2008 5:05 PM

good point. one would think that presidential candidates would just assume this is something they have to do, that there will be a story or two about it if they do and then nobody will care, but that if they hold back stuff it will bite them.

I meant more from the standpoint of why anyone in the press or the public cares - what are we supposed to learn from these returns? We can already pretty well guesstimate what each of the candidates made last year based on their work and family history consists of. Whether one made $500k while the ohter made $2m or even $20m - it doesn't seem terribly important to me.

Case in point, FDR and GWB were both fabulously wealthy by contemporary standards. Did it matter much in terms of their economic policies?

It seems like a terrible distraction from looking at their professional and political resumes to be honest.

Posted by BFR | April 18, 2008 5:05 PM

FWIW, "protecting the privacy of her children" is also the excuse that Teresa Heinz Kerry gave for not releasing her full income tax information in 2004 (she and John Kerry filed separately).

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/politics/campaign/12disclose.html?ex=1399780800&en=c31c1c5af4a1efc7&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Posted by Alex Knapp | April 18, 2008 5:08 PM

Go look at the returns! Fascinating!
$28 interest income
$0 capital gains
$0 dividend income

Any assets are hidden somewhere else.

OT: Why does a beer distributor attend a southern
baptist church?

Posted by catclub | April 18, 2008 5:09 PM

This isn't just trivial. It was Cindy who had close business ties to Charles Keating -- which is to say, the McCains have a history of doing their corrupt business dealing in Cindy's name.

Michael Kranish, Boston Globe, 2/28/08:

Moreover, [William K. Black, S&L regulator pressured by the Keating Five] said he believes McCain intervened partly because his wife had invested money with Lincoln chairman Charles Keating, a campaign contributor who let the McCains use his home in the Bahamas.... McCain met Keating in 1982, during McCain's successful run for Congress, and soon began accepting offers from Keating to fly McCain's family on a corporate plane to Keating's house in the Bahamas. McCain did not pay for most of the trips until years later, when the matter became public.... Months later, questions emerged about why McCain did not reimburse Keating for all the Bahamas vacations. McCain said he thought that his wife, Cindy, had written checks for a number of trips, but documentation could not be found for any except the 1986 trip. McCain agreed to pay $13,433. In addition, the Arizona Republic reported that Cindy McCain and her father had invested $359,100 in a shopping mall for which Keating was the principal backer.

Posted by Matt Weiner | April 18, 2008 5:18 PM

What could that possibly mean? Suppose the Clintons tried to use Chelsea's privacy as an excuse not to release their financial information -- people would have laughed. Then screamed.

As I recall, Teresa Heinz Kerry only released two pages of her tax returns in 2004. And her excuse for not release the entire return: her family's privacy.

To be fair, I think First Lady candidates should release their entire tax returns. Teresa Heinz Kerry should have in 2004 and Cindy McCain should now. But Cindy McCain is basically making the same excuse the Teresa Heinz Kerry did in 2004. Maybe Matthew will go back in his archives and see what he said about the situation then.

Posted by Al | April 18, 2008 5:19 PM

The press was relentless in going after Teresa Heinz Kerry, who released way more information than Cindy McCain has. More to the point, Cindy McCain was financially involved in the Keating 5 scandal. Not to mention her shenanigans with her not-for-profit organization and McCain's own campaign finance problems with one of his organizations back in '04. But, um, Keating 5?

How can anyone suggest after that her finances should be off-limits because she and McCain have children? These aren't even her adult children from a former marriage (which, btw, did not get a pass from the media for teresa Heinz Kerry). This isn't her role as executor of her first husband's estate. These are THEIR children, just like Chelsea is Bill and Hillary's child. If it wouldn't get Bill off the hook, I don't see why it gets Cindy off the hook.

Anyway, I'm just waiting for the NYT to write an op-ed demanding she release her taxes as thet did with Mrs. Kerry and Mr. Ferraro.

I'm also waiting for the Weekly Standard to publish an op-ed called "Sugar Mommy: Why won't Cindy McCain release her tax records?" Where they suggest part of the reason is "one thing the returns would show...is the extent to which John McCain is a 'kept man'" because they did that to Kerry.

Likewise, I can't wait for Bob Novak to go on TV and say of Cindy McCain "I guess she feels that when you have your own hundred million dollars, you can say anything you want" and wonder "what's she hiding" because she "won't submit income tax returns to public scrutiny."

And, of course, the NYT headlines like "Privacy of Wife's Fortune Casts a Shadow Over McCain" since they did that with Kerry.

But, of course, in spite of her involvement in the Keating 5 suggesting we demand a higher disclosure here than we would for others, I expect the rules will be different for John McCain. They always are.

Posted by anon | April 18, 2008 5:24 PM

To be fair, I think First Lady candidates should release their entire tax returns. Teresa Heinz Kerry should have in 2004 and Cindy McCain should now.

Why? What do you expect to learn? She's rich and has so much $$ that she's invariably going to have donated to some cause that pisses you and I and everyone else off.

What bearing does this have on how McCain would govern or how Kerry would have governed? We already know that she was a factor in the Keating scandal.

Posted by BFR | April 18, 2008 5:53 PM

I wonder if she reported the drugs that she stole from her charity as income.

Posted by Seitz | April 18, 2008 5:54 PM

As much political distaste as I have for John McCain, his wife has a right to file separately and have her privacy protected as a private citizen. She is not a public figure and does not, as his wife, hold any office.

Posted by brennakimi | April 18, 2008 5:56 PM

Seriously, this is a step above rooting through their excrement to find out how well they ate the night before.

Posted by BFR | April 18, 2008 5:56 PM

what Thlayli said.

Posted by cleek | April 18, 2008 5:56 PM

The salient point here is that Cindy McCain's money isn't John McCain's money -- he signed a pre-nup before he married her. As far as McCain's income last year, it was the least of the three remaining candidates -- pretty much just his Senate salary and his Navy pension, which came out to about $250k, IIRC.

Posted by Fred | April 18, 2008 6:02 PM

She is not a public figure and does not, as his wife, hold any office.

In that case, we can just assume that Saint John is the patron of kept men.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 18, 2008 6:03 PM

Fred,

That only matters if the divorces her. And as others have pointed out his children inherit her wealth even if he divorces her so he has an interest in it.

BFR, the issue isn't what groups do they donate money to, it is where is their money invested, do they have conflicts of interest?

Posted by Eric k | April 18, 2008 6:38 PM

BFR, the issue isn't what groups do they donate money to, it is where is their money invested, do they have conflicts of interest?

The short answer is yes - they all do, AKA campaign donations. The tax returns are second order at best.

Posted by BFR | April 18, 2008 6:49 PM

"That only matters if the divorces her"

It's not just that. Most of Cindy's money is segregated from McCain now. He can't decide to plow her money into his campaign, for example. It's not his money. Their kids may stand to inherit much of it, but the kids aren't running for President. And they probably don't even have access to much of the money yet anyhow.

Posted by Fred | April 18, 2008 6:52 PM

Suppose the Clintons tried to use Chelsea's privacy as an excuse not to release their financial information -- people would have laughed. Then screamed.

Well yes, but, to be fair, let's remember the Clintons aren't Republicans, and thereby they have to abide by the rules. Insane feckless rationalizations are only valid when used by right-wingers.

Posted by Stefan | April 18, 2008 7:08 PM

The salient point here is that Cindy McCain's money isn't John McCain's money -- he signed a pre-nup before he married her. As far as McCain's income last year, it was the least of the three remaining candidates -- pretty much just his Senate salary and his Navy pension, which came out to about $250k, IIRC.

What? He doesn't live in their multiple lavish houses? He doesn't go on vacation with his family, or eat out at extremely expenive restaurants, or enjoy his wife's lifestyle? Cindy McCain is living in luxury alone, while Gigolo John is off alone in some rental apartment somewhere, scraping by on his "middle-class" $250K income?

Posted by Stefan | April 18, 2008 7:12 PM

Stefan beat me to it, as usual Fred is being a disingenious wanker, but then at least he is consistent.

Posted by Eric k | April 18, 2008 7:18 PM

Stefan beat me to it, as usual Fred is being a disingenious wanker, but then at least he is consistent.

'Disingenious' or no, he's right. There presumably is a prenup in place, ergo he has no controlling interest over the wife's investments which I believe is the only rationale by which the tax returns are relevant.

Look, we already know he's got conflict-of-interest issues and we don't need tax returns to prove it. We know he's been knee-deep in corruption from past history. The tax returns are a complete sideshow and waste of time.

There's nothing to see here.

Posted by BFR | April 18, 2008 7:27 PM

Favorite Steve Sailer moment: trying to smear vegetarians with guilt by association with Hitler.

Favorite Fred moment: his advice to lower your car insurance rates by buying some Berkshire Hathaway stock.

Posted by Barbar | April 18, 2008 7:36 PM

Geraldine Ferraro tried the same trick of holding back her spouse's tax returns in 1984 and got widely criticized for it:

http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2008/03/geraldine-ferraro-on-wikipedia.html

Someone with Nexis should be able to find some choice quotes from Republicans about Ferraro.

As for a pre-nup do we know if one exists, and if it does, do we know what it says? McCain's political career is likely beneficial to the family biz, so he would've been stupid to agree to completely keep himself out of the picture.

Also, McCain briefly worked for the family biz, and he loaned his first election campaign in 1982 a large sum from the family biz (which I think was repaid by donors seeking favors) so his hand has been in the family business.

Posted by Brian Schmidt | April 18, 2008 8:08 PM

I dunno, people really like Chelsea. Even I like Chelsea, and when the primary's over I never want to hear Clinton (the new c-word) again.

Posted by aleks | April 18, 2008 9:14 PM

"I meant more from the standpoint of why anyone in the press or the public cares - what are we supposed to learn from these returns? We can already pretty well guesstimate what each of the candidates made last year based on their work and family history consists of. Whether one made $500k while the ohter made $2m or even $20m - it doesn't seem terribly important to me.

Case in point, FDR and GWB were both fabulously wealthy by contemporary standards. Did it matter much in terms of their economic policies?

It seems like a terrible distraction from looking at their professional and political resumes to be honest.

Posted by BFR | April 18, 2008 5:05 PM"

Besides the conflicts of interest, it's also to check for any funny business, such as investing in foreign sovereign wealth funds that could undermine national security or any large sources of income they can't really explain.

Posted by Reality Man | April 19, 2008 3:12 AM

"Besides the conflicts of interest, it's also to check for any funny business, such as investing in foreign sovereign wealth funds that could undermine national security or any large sources of income they can't really explain."

How, exactly, would an American invest in a "foreign sovereign wealth fund"? Do you even know what a sovereign wealth fund is?

Posted by Fred | April 19, 2008 3:38 AM

"Favorite Steve Sailer moment: trying to smear vegetarians with guilt by association with Hitler.

Favorite Fred moment: his advice to lower your car insurance rates by buying some Berkshire Hathaway stock."

Not sure what one has to do with the other, but you do get a discount on GEICO insurance if you are a shareholder in its parent company, Berkshire Hathaway.

Posted by Fred | April 19, 2008 3:47 AM

How much does one share of Berkshire Hathaway cost, Fred? Don't make me explain the joke.

Posted by Barbar | April 19, 2008 8:42 AM

"How much does one share of Berkshire Hathaway cost, Fred?"

There are A-shares and B-shares, Barbar. The B-shares closed at $4,288 yesterday. When I bought my first one, they were trading at $3,200. All you need to own is one B-share to get the GEICO discount (you also get discounts on some products sold by other Berkshire portfolio companies). Most people, if they buy a solid used car instead of a new one, should have enough savings to buy one share of BRK-B. It wasn't the Marie Antoinette comment you seem to think it was.

Posted by Fred | April 19, 2008 1:21 PM

I'm a fan of Berkshire Hathaway, but not an investor. What happens to the price of A and B shares when the reputation and growth potential premium affixed to the stock dies when 78-year old Warren Buffet dies?
**********************

Theresa Heinz was a more pressing case than Cindy McCain because she was a billionairess active in politically left fundraising for Soros, 527s that directly benefited her snooty gigalo. The media interest in Ferraro's husbands taxes was over rumors he was Mafia and Ferraro reneging on her pledge to release both her and her husband's tax returns. (He wasn't Mafia, it turns out, but he was a shady operator with tax issues)

Posted by Chris Ford | April 19, 2008 2:59 PM