When George Washington was offered command of the Continental Army by Congress in 1775, he accepted the role, but not the salary. He reasoned that his leadership had to be seen as an act of selfless commitment to the American Revolution.

You might think that wasn’t much of a sacrifice on the part of a wealthy planter. But although affluent, Washington was also incredibly illiquid. His correspondence shows him making tough financial decisions, including selling tracts of land, to meet his personal liquidity needs.

Yet Washington was aware that politics is perception — including the perception of his personal finances. As the national standard-bearer, he knew the public’s trust in the new government would be built through officials acting with integrity.

In other words, you can learn a lot about a man by looking at his money, and you can learn even more about a president.

As someone who studies presidential wealth, I wonder what Washington would think now about presidential money and the perceptions Americans have of it. Former President Joe Biden and President Trump are both examples of what has gone wrong. In a polarized political environment, both have displayed financial behaviors that allow the public at times to believe that these men lack integrity — and that their finances can be weaponized against them.

Money has long been ammunition in politics. Take Martin Van Buren. Despite growing up poor, he was targeted for his........

© The Hill