Florida Republican Rep. Mike Waltz unveiled legislation on Wednesday aimed at forcing Joe Biden‘s White House to be more transparent in regards to his son Hunter Biden‘s upcoming art sales that are expected to fetch between $75,000 and $500,000.
If passed the Preventing Anonymous Income by Necessitating Transparency of Executive Relatives Act – or PAINTER Act – would require the president and vice president to report their non-dependent children’s financial records.
The executives’ spouses and dependent children are already bound by the same disclosure.
‘Under this administration, we have witnessed shameless attempts to profit off Joe Biden’s presidency that jeopardize the integrity of the White House,’ Waltz wrote in a statement.
Critics and ethics watchdogs are concerned buyers willing to pay the hefty price tag for Hunter’s paintings could do so to try and curry favor with the Biden administration and even the president himself.
Florida Congressman Mike Waltz introduced the Preventing Anonymous Income by Necessitating Transparency of Executive Relatives Act to force the Biden administration to be more transparent with Joe Biden’s son Hunter’s foray into professional art (pictured at a Trump rally on July 3)
The legislation would force Biden to disclose the buyers and prices of his only surviving son’s art, which apparently could fetch between $75,000 and $500,000
Waltz criticized the 51-year-old son of the president as having ‘no established credentials to warrant such enormous profits’ for his pieces (pictured: Hunter Biden’s artist profile on the Georges Bergès Gallery website)
Waltz criticized the Biden administration’s ‘silence’ on the issue, despite Press Secretary Jen Psaki being confronted on the topic at multiple White House briefings.
‘American citizens have a right to know who is attempting to purchase access to the White House through an “artist”, Hunter Biden, with no established credentials to warrant such enormous profits,’ the lawmaker wrote.
‘The PAINTER Act will put transparency first in the White House and shed light on the actions of the adult children of the President or Vice President that can be used to influence their parent’s position of power.’
Waltz’s legislation would force Biden and Harris along with their successors to report any non-dependent children’s income above $1,000.
They would also be required to disclose any gifts, dividends or capital gains valued at more than $200.
Any gifts or reimbursements non-dependent children receive because of their relationship to their powerful parent would also need to be disclosed, regardless of value.
The financial disclosures Waltz is calling for are identical to those the president’s spouse and dependent children already have to report (pictured: The president and first lady on the South Lawn on July 18)
The vice president’s spouse and dependent children are under the same requirements, and Waltz’s bill would expand it to their non-dependent children as well (pictured: Second gentleman Doug Emhoff and Vice President Kamala Harris on March 25)
Psaki told reporters that the White House would ensure impartiality through a system where Hunter will not ‘discuss anything related to the selling of his art’ and insists the president won’t be privy to who purchases his son’s pieces.
‘He’s not going to have any conversations related to the selling of art, that will be left to the gallerist,’ she said at a briefing last week.
She also said when asked if the White House will release the name of who purchases Hunter’s art: ‘Well, we won’t know who the buyers are. Hunter Biden won’t know who the buyers are.’
‘There’s no scenario where they could provide influence,’ Psaki assured – even if those sellers end up revealing themselves publicly.
However Hunter will be present at a private showing of his work in Los Angeles and a public exhibition in New York before the pieces go on sale.
Hunter Biden’s decision to display and sell his artwork has been a headache for the Biden administration as critics raise concerns that buyers willing to pay the hefty price tag are looking to buy influence or favor from the White House
The 51-year-old recovering drug addict’s foray into the professional art world during his father’s presidency has prompted criticism from at least two former White House ethics officials.
Walter Shaub, who headed the Office of Government Ethics under Joe Biden’s old boss Barack Obama said it’s ‘just showing the child of a president can cash in on the presidency.’
He also cast doubt on Psaki’s claim the buyers would be ‘anonymous’ to Hunter.
‘Is Hunter Biden going to walk around the art show with a blindfold on?’ the former ethics chief quipped.
George W. Bush-era White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter said the White House’s efforts to keep the buyers anonymous is ‘endorsing the exact opposite approach.’
Hunter Biden’s business dealings have been a cudgel for Joe Biden’s political opponents in the past (pictured: Hunter outside the White House on May 22)
Hunter’s drug addiction and connections with Ukrainian energy company Burisma were both issues raised on the 2020 campaign trail
‘It’s going to be very clear with people in the know as to who buys Hunter Biden’s art,’ pointing out that those in attendance at both showings would likely be ‘prospective buyers.’
‘The question is, are the American people going to know? The White House should insist on complete transparency,’ Painter said.
He suggested that if Hunter really wanted to paint professionally, he would wait to sell his works until Biden left office.
‘After all he made some money with a Ukrainian gas company, I think he’s probably doing all right financially,’ he added, referring to Hunter’s time serving on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma while Joe Biden was vice president.
His work with Burisma is not the only foreign income that has caused a headache for Biden in the past.
As late as April Hunter was reported to have a 10 percent stake in a Chinese equity firm that was partially owned by a Chinese government-run bank.
If Waltz’s bill passes the money Hunter gains from that venture would likely have to be disclosed as well, if he had not by then divested from his share.