Well-intentioned as it may have been, a recent survey by the Maine Freedom of Information Coalition asked prospective lawmakers too broad a question: Do they pledge to support -- "at every opportunity" -- open government in Maine?

And the survey was ill-timed. Last month, when it was sent out, most prospective legislators were too busy worrying about winning their elections to make general surveys and pledges, like the one from our media colleagues at the coalition, a high priority.

As a result, only 40 percent of the candidates for the Maine Senate and 24 percent of the candidates for the House of Representatives responded to the survey. Coalition leaders last week said they were disappointed at the response.

But during a time of almost unprecedented uncertainty, for both Maine and for our nation, we don't blame candidates for being reluctant to make a blanket promise about anything, even access to government. We agree with Brian Bolduc, a Democrat from Auburn running for the House. Bolduc told a reporter that he, like most people, believes in open government, "but I'm not going to support legislation that I haven't seen."

Before we go on, let's be clear: The Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel strongly support openness, keeping government records accessible and the public's right to know. We have hired lawyers when necessary and have spent a considerable amount of staff time fighting for access to documents and meetings that we believed were public under state law.

Our newspapers' editorial board recently supported a repeal of a newly approved state tax on beer, wine, soda, some fruit juice and flavored water because it was passed with lightning speed late during the last legislative session, without providing a reasonable opportunity for local businesses or the public to respond.

Our point today is that life is complicated and legislating isn't simple these days either, if it ever was. What was once clear has become less so.

A few years ago, most people and most members of Congress would have supported efforts encouraging banks to offer mortgages to as many consumers as possible in order to help them live the American dream of home ownership. Now, with apparent abuses by firms that lent money to people who couldn't afford the mortgages they received, and a subsequent, $700 billion taxpayer-financed rescue plan, would the support be the same?

Our position isn't so much a criticism of the Freedom of Information Coalition -- again, we support its underlying mission -- as it is a note of caution for advocacy groups of all stripes at the Statehouse. Yes, it may be tempting to ask candidates to make promises and send them litmus-test questionnaires that ask only a few questions, the ones your group really cares about. But how useful is that?

By asking legislative candidates to make an up-front pledge, an advocacy group in effect wants to substitute loyalty to its cause for a legislator's loyalty to his or her constituents. No organization should seek that, let alone a group that is founded on one of the most democratic principles of all -- that an informed, well-represented constituency is the best assurance of a healthy democracy.

Rather, incumbent candidates are better judged on their voting records and patterns. How did they act when they had specific pieces of legislation before them? Voters should ask if an incumbent, or a candidate who has held public office in the past, shows a pattern of supporting education funding, holding the line on taxes or advocating whatever positions that the voter holds dear.

If advocacy groups want to provide voters with useful information about incumbents and newcomers to public office, longer and more topically varied surveys are in order, ones mailed before Labor Day, not after general-election campaigns swing into full gear.

(Disclosure: Executive Editor Eric Conrad helped found the Maine Freedom of Information Coalition eight years ago. He is a member of the Legislature's Right to Know Advisory Committee, which works to ensure compliance with Maine access laws.)