The California Teachers Association abhors standardized tests for second-graders, but the union does not hesitate to subject candidates for the state Legislature to the group's own standardized test of 39 yes-or-no questions. The "correct answers" are obvious: no on merit pay, charter schools, vouchers, public disclosure of teacher evaluations. Yes on preserving seniority, restoring generous pension formulas and raising taxes to bring the state to the top 10 in per-student spending.

It goes even further in securing the CTA's grip on incoming legislators: Its warm-up essay questions ask whether a candidate would contact the teachers union before endorsing candidates in local school board races. If elected, will the candidate consult with the CTA when forming an informal "Cabinet" of education advisers?

It's little wonder that even the most modest education reforms are so difficult to achieve in Sacramento. Our elected officials are essentially making secret pledges to protect the status quo before they are even sworn into office.

Special interests across the board play this game: If you want our endorsement, if you want our money, you need to answer these questions now - are you with us or against us? Many even assure candidates that they will keep these little commitments out of public view.

Steve Glazer has seen this game, as a politician and a consultant, and he refuses to play. The 56-year-old former mayor of Orinda, now a Democratic candidate for state Assembly, has refused to fill out any of the questionnaires in the thick folder he keeps of them.

Glazer knows how the system works: You answer yes or no, and the special interest will demand absolutist fidelity to an issue shaded in gray.

"I think the biggest problem with these questionnaires is they're kept secret, and they're held in the back pocket of interest groups," he said. "So now if you don't do what you say you're going to do, they can hold it up and say ... 'You didn't tell us the truth.' "

Glazer provided me with an exchange of e-mails with the Sierra Club, an organization with which he agrees on an overwhelming number of issues. The e-mails made plain that he would be ineligible for an interview, let alone an endorsement, if he did not fill out the questionnaire - which would not be made public. He refused as a matter of principle.

"What's interesting about them is that they're at every level," Glazer said of the candidate questionnaires. "Most people don't even know about them. If you're running for city council, you're likely to have received a questionnaire. And if you run for governor or president of the United States, you're likely to have to received a number of them.

"I really do believe that transparency is a cure to this problem. If the groups realize that all their questions are going to be public, and candidates realize that all their answers are going to be public, it will fundamentally change how campaigns are conducted."

Some inquiries don't even come in question form. The Service Employees International Union, the large and unabashedly aggressive representative of public workers with big clout in the state Capitol, asks candidates for commitments: Will you walk picket lines? Mediate with employers? Write letters of support? Endorse strikes? Speak at rallies? Hold a press conference?

There was no precondition that the politician actually agree that the union's position on a particular dispute was reasonable. You're either with us or against us. Period.

Thus, it should come as no surprise in retrospect that elected Democrats were reflexively supporting the labor position in last year's BART strike. They accepted the union's choke chain in their candidate questionnaire.

Glazer has been one of the few Democrats of any prominence to suggest that BART workers should be prohibited from walking off the job - as is the case with transit workers in New York, Washington, Chicago and other major cities - in a region that is dependent by design on mass transportation.

I can't count the number of times that Democrats in Sacramento have complained about their Republican colleagues who have taken the no-tax pledge demanded by Grover Norquist of the Americans for Tax Reform.

At least those no-tax pledges are out in the open. The same cannot be said of the private pledges taken by Democrats in those private questionnaires from various special interests.

"These things have become insidious," said Glazer. "They've crept into our political world, slowly, and now they've really consumed a great part of the campaign. Ambitious politicians are very vulnerable about these things. They know what constitutes political power ... and that is these interest groups. They're organized, they're powerful, they're wealthy and they can be a platform."

Disclosure of both the questions and answers to those surveys would help voters judge not only the candidates, but also the priorities and tactics of influential interest groups.

Glazer is challenging editorial boards to insist that candidates disclose the contents of their questionnaire responses and the pledges they have made. It's a fair request, and one our editorial page will pursue. The questions on the CTA and SEIU surveys, in particular, are not just pursuing position insights. They are demanding to know, before a politician enters office: "Who's your daddy?"

Voters deserve to know the answer.

Online: You can read the full questionnaires by the California Teachers Association, Sierra Club and SEIU, and view a video clip of Steve Glazer explaining why he objects to secret surveys, at http://blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop.