Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney campaigns in...

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney campaigns in Des Moines, Iowa. (Aug. 8, 2012) Credit: AP

In one of the many ways in which I am not like Mitt Romney, nobody has asked me for 10 years of tax returns. So surely this column, in which I will not disclose what I paid in taxes, will disappoint nobody.

But if you were to ask me for a decade of tax returns, I would be Mitt-like: Nope, I would say, what you've got is all you're gonna get.

But then, don't you know, some smart aleck might come along and say, "Somebody told me Smith didn't pay any taxes at all during those years." And what could I do then? The only way to prove that I paid my fair share of taxes would be to show you what I consider none of your business.

So I have some sympathy for how Romney must've felt a couple weeks ago when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters that a Bain Capital investor had called him and said, "Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years." A bold claim, there. So who was that caller, Harry? The senator's not saying. And what makes you think that person, if he exists, was telling the truth? "Well, I'm not certain," Reid told The Huffington Post. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?" This underscores one of the many ways in which I am also not like Harry Reid. In my line of work, I can't lay out an assertion about somebody without attaching a name to it. It falls under one of the major tenets of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists: "Be accountable." No similar code exists for politicians. Holding them accountable is a job assigned to voters, who have their hands full there. (Occasionally, of course, it takes a prosecutor to hold a politician to account. But that's another matter.) Before you start paging through your favorite back copies of the Times Union, I must note that there are indeed occasions when journalists withhold the names of sources. But reputable news organizations use that tool sparingly, and then only under thoughtful guidelines.

Usually a source goes unnamed when the public interest served by disclosure of information far outweighs the question of credibility that may arise from our promise of confidentiality. If we think you really need to know something, and the only way we can get you that information is to guard the identity of our source, we'll probably opt to share what we know.

So when Harry Reed raised questions without any credible foundation about Mitt Romney's tax liability, he made journalists a bit uncomfortable. By virtue of his position, Reed's utterances are newsworthy, and what he said about Romney was fairly explosive.

It wouldn't have been appropriate to pretend he hadn't spoken. But it sticks in a journalist's craw to let somebody get away with an allegation that wouldn't pass muster for publication in any newsroom.

So news organizations did the right thing by quickly noting (in every story I saw) that Reid had refused to cite his source, and by referring to his point by such terms as "speculation." Still, everybody knows that Reid was manipulating the press to keep the spotlight on Romney's taxes. Democrats like reminding people that Romney is very wealthy; from that they can pivot to questions about how he got so rich - by gutting jobs in companies that Bain acquired, supposedly - and to observations about how unlike the rest of us he is. Voters supposedly prefer a candidate who they think is more like themselves.

The goading by Democrats has proven successful, forcing Romney to return again and again to a topic he'd rather avoid. On Thursday, he told reporters that he paid at least 13 percent of his income in taxes each year during the past decade. This did not impress his foes. "Prove it, Governor Romney," said a spokesman for President Obama's campaign.

Of course, this is a distraction from what a presidential campaign ought to be about. The fundamental questions for voters include what each candidate can do to return the American economy to growth, to guard the country from international threats, to bring social and economic justice to all our citizens and to protect the environment for our children and generations to come.

The only way in which the tax return flap can be viewed as a valid point of debate would be if there's credible indication that a candidate has taken unfair advantage of tax laws. We already know Romney is richer than the rest of us.

So what? So was Jack Kennedy. It shouldn't bother us if a candidate isn't just like us.

For the record, I've never hauled my dog to Canada on the roof of my car. But that doesn't make me any more or less likely to support a certain presidential candidate.

Writer Rex Smith is editor of the Times Union in Albany. Share your thoughts at http://blogs.timesunion.com/editors

SUBSCRIBE

Unlimited Digital AccessOnly 25¢for 6 months

ACT NOWSALE ENDS SOON | CANCEL ANYTIME