Stacked up against political scandals throughout history, so-called Troopergate is a drowsy affair. As far as we know, it’s a controversy devoid of sex, bribery, blackmail, and theft. The best one-sentence encapsulation of the governor’s alleged misdeed ran in this week’s Village Voice cover article by Wayne Barrett, who put it this way: “Eliot Spitzer tried to plant a story about Senate Republican leader Joe Bruno’s state-subsidized travel.”

That’s not quite enough drama for a TV movie, unless NY1 decides to produce an original miniseries starring Kevin Spacey and Peter O’Toole.

What’s extraordinary is the damage the story has inflicted on the governor. It wiped out what had been Mr. Spitzer’s standout political strength: his reputation for integrity.

He was the Hebrew National hotdog of politicians, and now, deservedly or not, he’s just like any street-corner, mystery meat Frankfurter. Troopergate has fundamentally altered the Spitzer biography, erecting a wall between his tenure as attorney general and as governor.

Tellingly, Wikipedia’s “Eliot Spitzer” entry devotes more words about the state police controversy than it does about Mr. Spitzer’s work as the “Sheriff of Wall Street.”

The tragedy for the governor is that his wounds are mostly self-inflicted. The consequences for Mr. Spitzer have been disproportionate because his administration has behaved as if it were guilty. The governor has shifted his story, while his aides have resisted efforts by investigators to obtain relevant e-mails and other documents.

So now, what ought to have been a story about the administration going a little overboard in exposing Senator Joseph Bruno’s expensive travel habits has become a referendum on the governor’s honesty.

(In his spare time, Mr. Spitzer has awakened the Republican base in New York by awarding driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.)

Now, Mr. Spitzer is vowing to challenge subpoenas that Senate Republicans issued last week to his chief of staff, Richard Baum, requiring that the administration turn over internal documents related to “Troopergate.”

The governor’s office called the subpoenas a “dangerous and irresponsible attack on our tripartite system of government” and a “partisan political fishing expedition.” He’s right of course. Senate Republicans are trying to embarrass and hurt Mr. Spitzer. Unfortunately for Mr. Spitzer, the state court that eventually hears this case isn’t likely to be concerned with motive.

The most important question is whether or not the material sought by Senate Republicans bears a reasonable relation to proposed legislation.

Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky easily cleared that legal hurdle in 2004 when a state judge ordered the Pataki administration to turn over hundreds of pages of internal memos related to the Thruway Authority’s sale of development rights of the Erie Canal to a single, politically-connected developer. Mr. Brodsky, a Democrat, may have had his own motives, but his subpoena was clearly related to his proposed legislation to overhaul state authorities.

“Legislative subpoenas are enormously important, indeed essential to the operation of a democracy. The Legislature must be able to get information about matters that pertain to the making of laws,” Mr. Brodsky said in an interview. “But their subpoena power is not intended to be a law enforcement investigation tool.”

Asked if Republicans sufficiently demonstrated a connection between their subpoenas and draft legislation concerning New York’s Freedom of Information laws and the independence of the state police, Mr. Brodsky said: “They have done that adequately, not brilliantly.” That’s not exactly the message Mr. Spitzer wants to hear right now, especially from a well-respected Democratic lawmaker.

Mr. Spitzer, however, may have more immediate concerns than swatting away subpoenas. His communications director, Darren Dopp, has agreed to testify before a Senate investigative committee at the end of the month. Mr. Dopp’s lawyer has said his client would answer questions posed by the Republican panel fully and openly. Judging by the report released last month by Albany County’s district attorney, David Soares, we have a sense of Mr. Dopp’s defense.

Not under oath, he denied that he concocted a negative story about Mr. Bruno, insisting that he started digging into Mr. Bruno’s trips to New York City in anticipation of a request for records from a Times Union reporter who had already written several articles about the usage of state aircraft.

Mr. Dopp said he urged the Spitzer administration to refer the travel records to an investigative body because he thought Mr. Bruno might have abused his aircraft privileges. Mr. Dopp pressed the issue against the advice of Mr. Spitzer, Mr. Baum, and the governor’s counsel, David Nocenti, each of whom had concluded that Mr. Bruno was probably innocent, according to the Soares report.

The looming question is whether Mr. Dopp will stick to the “lone gunman” theory when he testifies. Will he, under oath, tell the Senate committee that he acted unilaterally and orchestrated the recreation and gathering of itineraries from the police without the go-ahead from the governor or his top aides?

Senate Republicans like to say Mr. Spitzer has thrown Mr. Dopp “under the bus” by pinning all the blame on a press aide who didn’t follow orders.

Later this month, we’ll find out if Mr. Dopp intends to drag his boss beneath the wheels.