Thomas’ Financial Forms: No Scandal Here

Liberal groups are crying "gotcha!" after news that Justice Thomas failed to report his wife's income, but the lapse is more overblown than serious.

The LA Times, at the urging of Common Cause, is running a story headlined "Clarence Thomas Failed to Report Wife's Income."  It goes on to report that Thomas "failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years," and that the income in question totaled $686,589.

Predictably enough, leftwing groups are gleefully crying, "Gotcha!"  What, after all, could more corrupt than to fail to disclose $686,589 in income? This post at ThinkProgress already has almost 1,000 comments, many calling Thomas a criminal and demanding his impeachment.

Sorry, internet posters, but you've been suckered, as has the LA Times. The reason the Times's headline sounds so ominous is that the words "failed to report income" usually mean that someone didn't pay his taxes -- in other words, he was defrauding the government.  Not until the sixth paragraph does the Times volunteer any information what these "financial disclosure forms" are. (Indeed, the reporter never fully explains why these forms are required and what purpose they serve.) Instead, the reader has to guess for himself what Justice Thomas's infraction really was. His enemies -- as Common Cause no doubt expected when it planted the story -- wasted no time jumping to the conclusion that he had done something wrong.

A more careful review shows that this was about the most venial lapse imaginable.  The Times does not even describe Thomas's lapse correctly.  Here is his 2006 Financial Disclosure Report. On page 2, Thomas checks the box "No Reportable Non-Investment Income" for his wife. The form states that Thomas was not required to give amounts. Yet the Times implies that Thomas failed to report $686,589 in income. Strictly speaking, that is true. But Thomas had no obligation to report $686,589 in income!  At most, he was required to report merely that his wife had income, and identify the source.

Meanwhile, the Times does nothing to illuminate the gravity -- or lack thereof -- of the infraction. Instead, the Times states that judges are "bound by law" to disclose spousal income. True enough, but what law is that?  As it turns out, financial disclosures are required of federal judges under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.  Congress delegated to the Judicial Conference -- i.e., a committee of federal judges led by the Chief Justice -- responsibility for collecting the forms and making them available to the public. In other words, the judges themselves enforce the transparency requirements suggested by Congress. If the Judicial Conference learns of Thomas's lapse, what do you think it's going to do?  Not even Common Cause can discern any harm to the public, nor could the Judicial Conference mete out any discipline in any case.  All that that the Conference could do is ask Thomas to correct his disclosure forms, which he has already voluntarily done. Problem solved.

Tweet