Gov. Christie Town Hall Meeting at the Pink Cadillac Diner

Some politician who was not at this moment the governor of New Jersey gives a speech at a diner in New Hampshire.

(Aristide Economopoulos | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)

I'd like to say "nice try" to the Democrats. But it's not even a nice try.

That proposal to require a governor to resign if he decides to run for higher office is laughable.

The current Republican governor would never sign such a bill.

A veto override? That would require the votes of the same Republican legislators who would risk losing in a special election this November an office the GOP would otherwise hold till 2018.

Now that we've all had a chuckle, let's get serious. There's a real problem here that should be addressed and the Democrats aren't addressing it.

That's Chris Christie's penchant for politicking all over America while being protected by police paid for by us taxpayers.

The theory is that the governor needs protection even when he travels out of state. There's a flaw in that theory: When the governor is out of state, he's not the governor. That title falls to the lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno.

I can see why she should have police protection here at home. But as for that private citizen touring New Hampshire, he can pay for his own security.

This is not some sort of wild notion. It's reality for the 12 or so GOP presidential wannabes who are not governors.

Back in the 2012 race, I saw how this works in practice. Former Texas congressman Ron Paul was scheduled to speak at a rally outside the Statehouse. I had scheduled an interview and we agreed to do it on the ride in from the Trenton airport. There was plenty of room for me in the car even though it held his entire entourage.

A crowd listens to Presidential candidate Ron Paul speak outside the Statehouse in Trenton during his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination; no taxpayer dollars were involved in this rally.

Cost to taxpayers? Zero.

Christie by comparison barnstorms around New Hampshire in a couple of State Police SUVs packed with armed escorts.

Cost to taxpayers? Unknown.

The New Jersey Watchdog website is suing for the release of "The American Express Card statements and supporting documentation for roughly $1 million in unspecified travel costs charged to state taxpayers," reporter Karl Lagerkvist told me in an email.

Lagerkvist also noted that Christie's travel costs are five times higher than those of Christie's primary opponent Scott Walker, who's governor of Wisconsin.

After some criticism, Walker has agreed to have his campaign pick up travel and lodging expenses for his police escort.

But why should he have a police escort at all?

Walker also loses his governmental authority the minute he crosses the state line. So does Bobby Jindal when he leaves Louisiana. The Legislature there voted to take the police travel funding out of the budget, but Jindal vetoed the move.

That legislature is solidly Republican, by the way. If a bunch of Louisiana Republicans can try to curb the travel budget of a Republican governor, why don't our Democrats do the same?

I've discussed that with some of them and the short answer is that politicians like their perks. The Democrats are optimistic they'll get the governorship back and they like those faux-presidential police escorts as much as Christie does.

But the whole enterprise rests on a rather shaky legal foundation, one that could use a bit of rocking.

Christie has claimed that he has no say over his own security, but Lagerkvist calls that "a self-serving cop-out."

He noted that the head of the State Police reports to the attorney general. And we now have an acting attorney general who serves at the pleasure of the governor.

"Guess where the buck stops?" he asks.

I'd like to see it stop with the Federal Election Commission. Going back to that Ron Paul comparison, his campaign had to rent the SUV, pay the driver and provide security for the rally.

But when it comes to potential risk, Paul was then just as likely to be targeted by some nut as Christie is now. The same goes for the other contenders in the current GOP primary who are not governors. With all the negative attention he and his hair are attracting, Donald Trump surely needs a police escort more than a middle-of-the-pack candidate like Christie does.

If I had my druthers, any security provided exclusively to one candidate would be classified as an in-kind contribution to that candidate. And since state governments can't make contributions, those governors would be on a level playing field with the other candidates.

But that's a question for the feds. The question for the state's politicians is: Why are we providing a police escort for a private citizen in another state?

I suspect a lot of taxpayers would like to hear the loyal opposition talk about that instead of a bill that will never be enacted.

ADD: When I spoke with state Senator Loretta Weinberg about her bill to require Christie to resign, she didn't mention that she also has a bill in to require him to pay for his security detail while campaigning out of state.

She just sent me an e-mail stating she had forgotten about that bill. But it is indeed in the hopper as of May 18. Since then, nothing has happened with it.

Here's the summary from the state website:

This bill provides that all expenses incurred for travel, food, lodging, security, or any other purposes, incurred by the Governor when traveling out of State and engaging in political activities and not activities directly related to the Governor's regular and official duties as Governor, would not be paid with or out of public funds.

Within 10 business days after the Governor travels out of State and engages in political activities, the Governor is to file with the State Ethics Commission a notice that describes the date, destination, and purpose of the trip.

Whenever a question arises as to whether a particular expense is one that the Governor incurred when traveling out of State and engaging in political activities and not activities directly related to the Governor's regular and official duties as Governor, the commission is to resolve the question based on information gathered by the commission and provided by the Governor. The commission may accept questions from the Governor, a State officer or employee, or a member of the public.

The bill further provides that any expense for an activity determined by the commission to be a political activity would not be eligible for payment or reimbursement from public funds made available to the Governor.

The bill also provides that an individual or an organization may file a complaint with the commission that an activity in which the Governor has engaged is a political activity and not an activity directly related to the Governor's regular and official duties as Governor and is, therefore, ineligible for payment or reimbursement from public funds. The commission is to conduct an investigation of the complaint in accordance with the existing applicable procedures of the commission for examining and resolving complaints.