Despite my personal feelings regarding Donald Trump, with the way this bill is drafted I have to dissent from the majority. The sticking point for me is that this bill would affect not just Donald Trump and Mike Pence, but all future presidents and vice presidents. The idea of a blind trust only sounds perfect right now because most voting in favor of it do not believe for a second that Trump will follow any of the promises he is currently making. He is already showing inability to separate lines just from the examples on Countable (Ivanka in a meeting with the Japanese PM and Trump in a meeting with his Indian business partners). However, a blind trust wouldn't mean just taking control from Trump and immediate family; first step is selling off all assets and reallocating to new investments, meaning everything that he has spent his life building (those god-awful towers) sold, most likely at a loss, and then that money reinvested into "blind assets." Doing this takes away the identity of the man just declared president-elect, a main reason I assume most of his supporters associate with him. A recent Washington Post article by David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee A. Casey who practice appellate and constitutional law in the District states, "Moreover, requiring Trump to liquidate his holdings would discourage other entrepreneurs from seeking the presidency, leaving the field clear for professional politicians and investors. Given that the American people have made clear their disgust with Washington’s elite, creating a disincentive for businesspeople to seek the presidency is not in the public interest." This is not something I am interested in doing. It was an error to elect Trump, who is human garbage in my opinion, but he was elected nonetheless. I am not hopeless that, in the future, someone of Trump's wealth but without his lying, lack of empathy nature would come forward and want to lead. I would not want this bill to deter them. Career politicians do lead to some of the stagnation we see in politics I believe. Also, Obama did not use a blind trust for reasons of his own, yet because of the nature of his wealth and, I believe, the general opinion that he would not willfully screw over the whole country for his own self gain, it was not a matter that was pressed. A bill focusing on stricter financial guidelines for presidents who opt not to use a blind trusts, such as what interactions they are allowed to have and how often, when they reveal financial statements, and implementing a neutral monitoring party of lawyers and regulators (not this ridiculous Reince Priebus promising to behave), etc. would make more sense and be more beneficial.