With power comes responsibility.

The California Latino Legislative Caucus ought to heed that cardinal rule and let the public know who is giving money to a nonprofit group under its control.

Instead, as its influence grows, the caucus is hiding behind a technicality in state law and choosing not to disclose which interest groups are trying to curry its favor.

As The Bee's Jim Sanders revealed Tuesday, the caucus has not named donors to the Latino Legislative Caucus Foundation in 2009, 2010 or so far this year.

But you can guess who they are, based on the list of benefactors from 2007 and 2008, when then-caucus Chairman Joe Coto did the right thing and lifted the veil of secrecy. During those two years, nearly $860,000 was given. Many of the biggest contributions came from influential players such as the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and big corporations such as AT&T, ConocoPhillips and Oracle. They all had business before the Legislature.

The caucus foundation was started seven years ago to promote Latino culture, boost civic participation and sponsor community events. Those all are worthy causes. But is there any doubt that donors are also hoping to get in the good graces of legislators who have a big say on bills that can affect their livelihoods?

Watchdog groups point out, correctly, that unlimited contributions to nonprofits like the foundation can be as influential as campaign donations, which are limited at $3,900 per election. If such donations are allowed, the only real safeguard is transparency.

State law does not require nonprofits to disclose their donors, but does demand that lawmakers disclose donations of above $5,000 that they solicit for charitable causes. The law is somewhat murky when a legislator is making the fundraising pitch as part of a group like the caucus.

That allows the foundation to keep its benefactors secret, argues Assemblyman Gil Cedillo of Los Angeles, the caucus chairman in 2009 and 2010. His interpretation of the law may be defensible, though it's notable that the California Legislative Black Caucus has identified donors to a similar foundation the last two years. In any case, just because secrecy may be legal doesn't make it right – or wise for the long-term interests of the caucus.

Now, it includes 23 lawmakers, all Democrats. With new districts for the 2012 election, the caucus' size and clout will likely increase.

Its decision on disclosure will set the tone. Will the caucus champion openness? Or will it only deepen cynicism that the best way to get legislators' attention is to write a check?

The current caucus chairman, Assemblyman Tony Mendoza from Artesia, did not comment for The Bee's story and declined to respond to The Bee's editorial board on Tuesday. His silence is not encouraging.

This is also an opportunity for Speaker John A. Pérez to step in and make a clear call for transparency. That didn't come Tuesday, either.

If they haven't noticed, the Legislature's standing with the public is at an all-time low. This can be a small but highly symbolic step to help rebuild trust.

If the caucus won't act, the Legislature must fix the law. When lawmakers decide how a nonprofit's money is spent, the public has every right to know who's giving them that cash.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.