Now that the debate over tax cuts -- particularly cuts that primarily benefit those with high incomes or serious family money -- has seemingly become a permanent feature of American politics, it seems time to ask whether political journalists have some sort of disclosure obligation regarding their financial stake in the races they cover.

Currently, it's a given that reporters should disclose any past or present financial relationships they have with the subjects of their stories. If a business scribe, for example, takes a few thousand dollars to speak at a corporate convention, he's expected to tell his readers about it the next time he writes about that company. Most would agree that that's a pretty sensible policy.

So why should political journalists get a pass, particularly when the sums of money involved are potentially much greater? For instance, a network news superstar earning several million dollars a year has a huge financial stake in the outcome of next year's expected battles over making President Bush's tax cut permanent, and the possible elimination of the estate tax. Isn't that something her viewers should know? And if those policies are actually enacted, the same journalist will likely find herself covering the reelection campaign of a sitting president whose actions have directly benefited her to the tune of hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of dollars. If that doesn't require some sort of meaningful disclosure, I don't know what does.

This post isn't meant as an attack on either high-priced TV talent or upper-income tax cuts. I'm just throwing the whole question of disclosure out there for debate. If you'd like to weigh in, send me an e-mail. I'll print the best responses as they come in over the next few days.
--------