That's why it has been standard practice for Presidential candidates and aspirants to release taxes and other financial disclosures before elections, and why it was such a big deal that Trump didn't.
I think that it should be law that the finances of the people at these levels of governence (maybe even down to the city level) be open to the public to review.
I didn't know that. I'm just completely speculating right now, but I wonder if that has something to do with Jared Kushner's denied security clearance. [1]
Does that apply to the President? (At this point it seems clear that nothing applies to the president; let’s hope to god that someone makes a new amendment for that.)
The president (and other elected positions) are carved out of those kinds of requirements: requiring an elected official to "pass" a background test created by unelected public servants amounts to an unintended check on representative democracy.
To be clear: we absolutely should require that elected officials disclose their finances. But we shouldn't require them to be vetted through a mostly unaccountable process after they've been elected.
In particular, because the President is the source of classification authority, the oversight functions that would normally be fulfilled by financial disclosures on forms like the SF-86 have traditionally been fulfilled by the electorate. The financial disclosures are part of the process of ensuring that people entrusted with national security information are "reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and loyal to the U.S." Candidates releasing their tax returns is a (less rigorous) process aimed at the same thing.
