A bill proposed by two state House Republicans that would require candidates for nearly all state and local offices to disclose their credit scores should not receive any serious consideration if it is taken up in the 2016 legislative session.
The idea - that voters could make sounder judgments about candidates if they had to reveal their credit scores - is understandable since the need for transparency in politics today is paramount. But too many variables affect a credit score, which could result in a candidate whose finances are in good order to have a lower credit score, and vice versa.
A payment sent on time but arrives late, for instance, can affect a score. After all, 35 percent of a credit score is based on payment history.
A high credit card balance, perhaps necessitated because of a catastrophic illness of a child, also could lower a credit score. The level of debt comes just behind payment history in order of importance on credit score calculations.
When it comes to credit scores, having an account charged off and having an account sent to collections, in addition to instances one might expect like filing bankruptcy and defaulting on a loan, are problems that can come back to haunt a candidate. And if any of those problems was in the last seven to 10 years, despite the candidate's stellar record since, they could be used to determine a credit score.
The bill by Rep. Cameron Sexton, R-Crossville, and Rep. Paul Bailey, R-Sparta, is well meaning, but the possibility of the inaccurate picture it could give of a candidate is reason enough for this bill to not receive any support.