The state of Tennessee has come under the microscope for a one of a kind bill that has been proposed in the state legislature. The proposed bill would make compulsory the disclosure of credit ratings any person that runs for public office within the state. The bill has received mixed reactions from both ends of the aisle. The proponents of the bill in the state are, Republican Senator Paul Bailey and Republican Representative Cameron Sexton. The proposed bill would fall under the umbrella of the Voter Accountability and Transparency Act.
The bill proposal
The move for the proposal has come in light of many accusations against candidates that may run for public office in the state of Tennessee. The accusations of bad credit ratings amongst any person that runs for state public office has turned out to be one of the primary concerns that people may have and wish to know about their candidates. Most of the voters of the state of Tennessee believe that they need to know the candidates financial standing and ability to handle their own finances and credit ratings if they choose to run the state's large financial system.
Many voters believe that it is their constitutional prerogative to have access to any public officials financial documents in addition to the civic files and criminal records. Representative Sexton also underscored the argument by stating that the need for the bill was imperative. He said that during the time of elections many candidates proclaim that they would be able to balance the state budget within a few years of election. However, he maintains that the candidate must be able to prove his financial standings in the public of his personal accounts which could, in turn, prove his financial knowledge in the long run of state economics.
The critical stance
The bill will not only be specific towards the governmental positions within the state of Tennessee. It will also extend to any public office, including the district attorney, the President of the University of Tennessee and the judges of the Tennessee courts. The bill has gained an equal amount of criticism as much as it has support. Many critics state that the bill could leave a black mark on people’s lives and would never let them move forward. The critics maintain that sometimes there could be many reasons and human errors or unfair judgements handed down. This could pose as a major disadvantage for someone competent, but unfairly targeted, to move on.