At the local level, a candidate for Oregon’s House District 52 — portions of which touch Gresham, Corbett and Boring — is driving home the point that campaign donations shouldn’t be allowed to buy a candidate’s loyalty.

In fact, he’s gone to the extreme of severely limiting how much he’ll accept from any one person or organization in donations in order to demonstrate the priority he places on residents of the district.

Meanwhile, at the national level, Sen. Jeff Merkley has thrown his considerable influence behind the DISCLOSE Act, an effort to pull back the curtain on who is getting funding from whom.

In short form, the proposed law would require any group or individual spending $10,000 or more during an election cycle to file a report with the Federal Election Commission explaining the amount and nature of each expenditure of more than $1,000. The report would give the names of all of its donors who gave $10,000 or more. And the DISCLOSE Act would help close the loopholes that allow donors to hide their true identities.

Merkley, a Democrat, has jumped on this bandwagon, and for good reason: The presidential election alone will result in spending that’s measured not in the millions but in the billions of dollars. And of course, that leads to these questions: Who, exactly, would these candidates represent — financial backers or Average Jill or Joe? And, what does it reveal about the candidate’s character, based on the acceptance of campaign donations?

While it’s admirable that a candidate would reject large campaign contributions, we fear it’s more of a feel-good tactic rather than a clear indication of how a representative would vote if elected.

Instead, we favor the approach taken by the DISCLOSE Act. This bill is all about following the money, leading voters to more informed choices.

Rather than quibbling about how much money a candidate receives, we think it better to know where that money came from. The truth will set voters free.