Make no mistake, the dust-up over Hillary Clinton's tax returns has nothing to do with any catalog of illegal activity. It has to do with perception management. For better or for worse, the delay in providing the records has resulted in wild speculation, but focusing on a singular question: Where did your millions come from?
Camp Clinton is in conflict with both history and perception. The reasons why below the fold.
Conflict with History
Regarding the actual disclosure of tax returns, the Clinton campaign is in conflict - with the Clinton campaign. The irony is that during her Senate run, Hillary Clinton beat her opponent about the hands and face over his delay in making his returns public. The precedent lies with the person who wants to be President.
In 2000, during Clinton's Senate successful Senate run, her opponent, Rick Lazio, delayed the release of his tax returns. The Clinton campaign and other Democrats pounced:
The campaign of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something. The State Democratic Party even sent a young campaign worker dressed as Uncle Sam to Mr. Lazio's campaign events, to shout at him to disclose the returns.
''Rick Lazio can't explain why it took three months to release his taxes,'' said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton campaign spokesman.
(Source: NYT, 2000)
The Clinton campaign clearly believed that transparency was a key component of the process, and made statements that may sound very familiar. What has changed today, the value of transparency? Probably not. The only thing that has changed is the date on the calendar, and whose turn it is to be transparent. The issue is it's not so convenient this time.
Memo to Howard Wolfson - "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." - George Bernard Shaw
If the Clinton campaign is not careful, the story will not be the content within the returns, it will be the ever-growing curiosity behind the reason for the delay.
Conflict with Perception..aka "But Wait, There's Less!"
The Clinton campaign has stated that there are plenty of tax returns already on record. This is true - up until the year 2000. According to a 1999 White House statement:
The President and Mrs. Clinton's 1998 federal income tax return shows $89,951 in Federal Income Tax on an Adjusted Gross Income of
$504,109 of which $200,000 was the President's salary. The return
shows that the Clintons made an overpayment on their taxes during 1998
of $4267. The Clintons have elected to apply this overpayment to their
1999 income taxes.
Fast forward to the US Senate. Instead of tax returns, senators are able to submit "ranges" of their income and assets. According to analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton was in the top 10 richest senators from 2004-2006, listing assets ranging from $10 to $50 million. Income from her spouse's speeches is also reported and factored into the calculation. Her status looks pretty good compared with the average senator:
(Image from Center for Responsive Politics)
Proceeds from her well-known book "It Takes a Village" were donated to charity. With that in mind, one might consider it normal to ask questions about the path taken on the road to riches, especially when you are speaking of a power-couple dedicated to public service that posted relatively humble income in the nineties.
Here is the perception problem that I think lies within the release of the tax returns. The disclosure of the path to becoming one of the top 10 richest senators is an anchor on the perception that you are the champion of the blue-collar worker. If I am making $9 an hour, and I'm thinking about sending money to her campaign, and I read a financial report that says she's dropping Hamiltons like Aaron Burr, then I'm less likely to dig into my Budweiser fund and send her some dough. Not only that, I might be less inclined to believe the back story that she is the People's Champ. Perhaps this is that golden opportunity to add some clarity to the empathize vs. sympathize debate. Any way you slice it, the reason behind the delay may be based on the fear of losing a piece of her blue collar base.
For the sake of comparison, Obama actually has a more humble posture (if there is such a thing) His asset range is from $456,000 to $1.1 million. Notice his assets are almost underground compared to the Senate average:
(Image from Center for Responsive Politics)
My analysis is in no way suggesting that one should form their basis for voting on income statements. Senators have historically been rich (or "ballers" as the kids like to say). Really rich. Especially when you compare them to Joe Schmuckatelli who is slinging lattes. In the age of identity politics, you have to manage every angle of your public perception. Based on that, I predict that we will not see anything in the way of taxes from the Clinton campaign prior to the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. The heat from the delay is not as hot as the prospect of losing votes due to the monster income and the potential sources of that income.
I'm not a political strategist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.