Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are refusing to shine a light on important aspects of their character and campaigns. By hiding from the public, they want to dodge disclosures about their finances and stances. It’s a cover-up that voters shouldn’t accept.

For Trump, the issue is his taxes. All presidential candidates in recent years have released their returns to the public for better or worse. Income, donations, write-offs: it’s all there. The figures reflect wealth, business savvy and charitable leanings.

The New York billionaire and presumptive Republican nominee doesn’t see it that way. He’s rejecting requests to release his taxes with a dismissive remark: “There’s nothing to learn from them.”

He’s dodging responsibility on another level by playing for time. His taxes are regularly audited, a process he says needs to play out before he’ll let the paperwork surface. But the IRS says there’s nothing about the audit process that forbids him from releasing what’s on file.

Trump’s evasiveness goes to the heart of his image as an accomplished business figure and savvy deal maker. It’s hard to take these boasts seriously without the tax numbers to back them up. His use of bankruptcy laws, loopholes and loans may be wider or narrower than we know — but the facts won’t be known until his taxes are released. That date, he says, will probably come after the November presidential vote, a cynical bit of timing that plays voters as suckers.

For Clinton, the money problem nags in a different way. After leaving office as secretary of state, she launched a lucrative two-year career as a paid speaker at business gatherings. On the list were three speeches to Goldman Sachs, the giant Wall Street investment firm that paid her $225,000 each time, as her rival Sen. Bernie Sanders frequently mentions.

But what did she say? Clinton refuses to release her remarks, saying that other presidential candidates are not providing such disclosures of their closed-door paid engagements. But the excuse “nobody else has to do it” as a reason for avoiding a legitimate public inquiry is not an example of leadership.

Her remarks might well be tame or rehearsed, just another money-making stop on her tour of conventions and corporate retreats that earned her $7.1 million. But when she takes money from a major player in the mortgage meltdown and a training ground for Treasury officials, the public should know what Clinton had to say.

Both front-runners need a dose of transparency. No amount of deferring and denying can substitute for plain disclosure and honesty. Voters deserve to know about Trump’s taxes and Clinton’s speeches.