One of the intriguing questions as New Yorkers go into the final weeks of the gubernatorial campaign is how Attorney General Spitzer might have approached the story of his use of a lobbyist’s private plane if he approached it the same way he approached his suspicions of malfeasance on Wall Street. He used the aircraft to move across the country on a fund-raising junket in May. Mr. Spitzer flew from Phoenix to Tucson to Cincinnati to New York in the company of Richard Fields. Mr. Fields, as our Jacob Gershman has reported, is a lobbyist and part of a consortium bidding for the right to operate horse-racing tracks in the state. And who will be instrumental in selecting a winner in that contest? Why, the next governor, who could well be Mr. Spitzer.

This is not a story of interest to, say, the New York Times, which reserves its reportorial attention for questions arising over, say, Republicans. But we predict that someone will have to come up with some answers on Air Spitzer. Mr. Spitzer’s running mate, Senator Paterson, has already gotten himself and Mr. Fields in trouble with state lobbying authorities for yet another private plane ride, and by our lights it’s no small thing for the man who is bidding to be the next governor of the state, who will have a role in decisions that can affect millions of dollars worth of the gambling rake, to be riding around in the jet of a man bidding for a share of those millions, even if General Spitzer’s campaign makes a token payment for the ride.

It’s hard to fault Mr. Spitzer for chafing under the lobbying restrictions. This newspaper has been among those advocating the end of such limits on the grounds that the restrictions violate what is, in the First Amendment’s protection of the right to petition, constitutional bedrock. But the issue here isn’t lobbying. It’s hypocrisy. General Spitzer has zealously pursued all sorts of alleged conflicts of interest, from investment advisers and stock analysts to insurance brokers to Richard Grasso’s compensation as head of the New York Stock Exchange. In his marquee cases, Mr. Spitzer has become notorious for expansive interpretations of existing law or the Martin Act. Especially in his cases in respect of mutual fund market timing, the fact that the behavior at issue was technically legal mattered not a whit in his attempt to pursue the cases.

Mr. Spitzer seems to be singing a different tune these days. Questioned on whether Mr. Spitzer’s accounting for the cost of these flights comports with New York’s strict lobbying regulations, his campaign spokeswoman, Christine Anderson, at first tried to claim that New York law was unclear, but that “We’re following federal law. The Spitzer campaign hasn’t done anything wrong.” Funny, Mr. Spitzer didn’t think following federal law was a sufficient defense when he was storming down Wall Street. Where Mr. Spitzer is trying to invent new technicalities to trap his victims, his campaign is now trying to argue that technicalities are irrelevant. Instead, it reimbursed the gambling tycoon for the value of first-class tickets for the private flights.

It turns out, however, that the State Lobbying Commission’s position is that that kind of reimbursement is only allowed if the flights are between two airports that have regular commercial first-class service. Otherwise, the campaign has to reimburse a much more expensive proportional share of a charter flight. Our Mr. Gershman reports that Mr. Spitzer used at least one airport, Lunken Field near Cincinnati, that doesn’t have any commercial service. Mr. Spitzer is trying to argue that what matters is that the city of Cincinnati does have commercial first-class flights, even if Lunken Field does not. That may make sense to him, but not to the letter of the law. Instead, he’s in a bit of a pickle. After years of using legal technicalities to try to pursue others for supposed conflicts of interest, Mr. Spitzer suddenly finds himself and his potential conflict of interest on the wrong side of black-letter law.

New Yorkers are tired of corruption in Albany, especially when they have recently witnessed yet another indictment against a state lawmaker, this time Senator Efrain Gonzales Jr. He joins the ranks of such notables as Guy Velella, Clarence Norman, Roger Green, Gloria Davis, Kevin Parker, Ada Smith, and Diane Gordon, all of them senators or assemblymen who have been accused or convicted of running afoul of the law. Our sense is that voters would like Mr. Spitzer to get tough on corruption in Albany. But what kind of signal does he send when his own campaign cuts corners and, for all his crusading on Wall Street, he applies a different standard when he or one of his friends is involved.