Jon Ralston wonders how many state and federal laws Jim Gibbons can break before he reaches the breaking point for his time in office

Sunday, March 11, 2007 | 7:43 a.m.

It is now obvious the governor has broken the law.

The question is how many laws he has violated - state and federal - and what the consequences will be. There is no escape from this mousetrap of his own construction. Jim Gibbons is caught, and while he and his sycophants may squeak about partisan bludgeoning and media jihads, he cannot escape the facts.

Those facts are that the governor secretly erected a legal defense fund last November stuffed with money from prominent and politically connected insiders, many with interests directly or tangentially before the state. Gibbons continued to collect that money in 2007 and only after I asked about the fund 10 days ago did he decide to release the donors (and only those who gave last year) - after deadlines had passed for legal disclosure of the money, whether it was defined as a campaign contribution or a gift.

The potential legal issues are multifarious. He was a congressman when the fund was clandestinely arranged - so federal statutes apply and he clearly broke one that mandated he receive permission from the House Ethics Committee and surely violated another that caps contributions to such defense funds at $5,000 a year per entity. After he became governor, Gibbons was bound to file a financial disclosure in mid-January, and he failed to disclose the $169,100 he later claimed (in an amended report last week) he had accepted as gifts.

You can induce some lawyers to write an opinion to say almost anything you want them to say. But that is not going to help the governor much considering these laws are pretty clear. And that's just the beginning, folks.

Other federal rules for defense funds are quite restrictive and do not simply allow such entities to be formed if you are accused of assaulting a cocktail waitress. There must be a nexus to your congressional duties, so the date this fund was created is important. But it was never registered, as required by the federal guidelines, and thus it failed to comply with reporting requirements that also mandate January disclosure.

Interestingly, Gibbons' lawyer, Michael Pagni, told the Associated Press last week that federal rules were not even discussed and "don't apply to a candidate for state office even if he's a federal officeholder at the time." That is directly contradicted by a Hill source I talked to who is familiar with the House rules and regulations.

Later in the week, Pagni told KLAS Channel 8: "The federal guidelines set up a real good road map how you can create these funds, what they can be used for, the restrictions on how they can be used, and we followed those guidelines." But clearly they did not or he would have sought sanction from the House, not taken contributions over $5,000 and reported, as required, on federal documents in January.

They can't have it both ways. And, in this case, they can't have it either way - except, lucky for him, that he is no longer in Congress, and out of the reach of House authorities.

Other state laws likely apply, too, some of which were mentioned by Secretary of State Ross Miller's prelude-to-a-probe missive sent to the governor last week. Laws relating to mandatory reporting of gifts and willful filing of incorrect documents with the secretary of state should have relevance, as could another that says lobbyists " shall not make, commit to make or offer to make a monetary contribution" to the governor right before, during and right after the legislative session. That could be applicable, too.

So how serious is all of this?

I know some Gibbons backers will say this is just a failure to dot a few i's and cross a few t's, the proverbial clerical error. But it's not.

The governor collected money for a slush fund that might never have been disclosed, whatever the original intent might have been, had pressure not been applied. This was a closed circle that only now has been opened, a classic example of small-state political scheming that has resulted in some panicked and feckless justification after the fact for what is manifestly lawless behavior.

The lingering question is what does the governor do now. He could acknowledge his culpability and apologize, thus throwing himself on the mercy of the public. Anything less should only make matters worse. And anything more would mean we are looking at the shortest administration in history.