The most, um, spirited exchange in the debates between Gov. Jennifer Granholm and challenger Dick DeVos arose when Granholm charged DeVos with omitting from his financial disclosure statement an investment in Alterra Health Care Corp., a Milwaukee-based nursing home company with a very troubled track record of bankruptcy and patient abuse.

Whether or not you think Granholm's charge was a cheap shot and whether or not you think DeVos bungled his response, the episode threw a bright light onto gaps in Michigan's financial disclosure rules.

And the exchange provided valuable insight into the emotional makeup and political tactics of people running for very high office.

The Democratic incumbent, who has made her tax returns public, criticized her wealthy Republican challenger for not releasing his, and wondered aloud what other oddities remained hidden.

In March, DeVos released an eight-page statement disclosing his charitable contributions and investment holdings and sources of income as of December 31, 2005. He also provided some information about tax rates . . . but not his complete tax return.

Nor were there any specific dollar amounts in his disclosure. Turns out that Michigan is one of only three states (the others are Vermont and Idaho) that has no financial disclosure law at all.

Rep. Steve Tobocman (D-Detroit) has introduced a bill that would require personal financial disclosure. And to the surprise of no one, it has been stalled in committee. Granholm supports the bill; John Truscott, DeVos' spokesman, says his guy feels it isn't needed.

Most other candidates for governor have released either their tax returns or a detailed financial disclosure. Former Gov. James Blanchard made his tax returns public, while former Gov. John Engler disclosed summaries of income and investments that included dollar amounts.

But flamboyant attorney Geoffrey Fieger, rich but certainly not as wealthy as DeVos, did not disclose his financial position, when he was the Democratic nominee for governor in 1998.

It's not hard to figure out why some have been reluctant to do so. Disclosing your personal financial details is a little like taking your pants down in public (I had to disclose my finances in 1978, when I ran in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate; it felt plenty uncomfortable.) And you can be sure that anyone as well endowed as DeVos has some pretty smart tax advisors.

I wouldn't be surprised if DeVos' tax return shows very high income and not much tax paid. That would, of course, be embarrassing.

Yet taking your pants down in public is something candidates for high office just have to get used to. It's part of a necessary emotional evolution from a private citizen to a public candidate. It's a long, difficult and intensely personal process, one that cannot be done for a candidate by the handlers and consultants. And it's an essential part of a candidate finding his or her true voice on the stump and, especially, in debates. (I should know; I never found my voice back when I was running, and Carl Levin beat me.)

And so I'm not at all surprised at DeVos' hesitant performance in the debates with Granholm. Before he ran for governor, his career was in business. Admittedly, he had much involvement with politics, but entirely in the back room. His wife, Betsy DeVos, was, for a time, state party chair.

The candidate simply has not had much time to go through the necessary emotional evolution to full candidatehood - which is never complete till one finds his true voice and confidence as a political performer.

That has compounded his problems in mounting a coherent challenge to Granholm and in making it clear what he would do instead.

Take the Single Business Tax, for instance. It is now scheduled to disappear for certain at the end of next year. Virtually everybody agrees it was a bad tax. Granholm proposed a plan to modify the SBT, but it drew intense opposition from several business sectors and was rejected by the legislature.

DeVos says he's happy the SBT is gone. But when he is pressed to say how he'd replace the $1.9 billion hole that would blow in the $9.3 billion state general fund, he's very vague.

What he has been saying up to now is that the SBT will have to be replaced by some sort of business tax that generates "about half" of the revenue now produced by the SBT.

Okay .. but he's ducked and dodged the questions of exactly what kind of business tax he would favor and which parts of state spending he would cut to plug a $950 million hole in the state's budget. And it's hurting him with voters who reasonably want to know what they'd get.

Finding your voice is tough for any candidate. But it's something you've gotta do, especially when you're running for governor and when $1.9 billion and the state's economic future is on the table.

Phil Power is a longtime observer of politics, economics and education issues in Michigan. He would be pleased to hear from readers at ppower@hcnnet.com. These opinions and others expressed in Phil Power's columns are individual opinions and do not in any way represent official policy positions of the Center For Michigan.