That may sound kind of ridiculous -- and it is. 

But that's the kind of odd question you have to deal with when it comes to figuring out where Steve Bullock's duties as governor end and his campaign fundraising begins.

Last week, Gazette reporter Tom Lutey reported a series of questionable trips taken by Bullock around the state which conveniently had fundraising stops attached. 

Questionable because the official business -- besides the fundraising -- seemed rather weak, especially at $1,650 per hour of airplane cost at taxpayer expense. 

For example, Bullock's official reason for coming to Billings was making peanut butter sandwiches with middle school students. Of course, some of the office and role of the governor has made-for-media publicity stunts mostly aimed at emphasizing important needs of citizens, or feel good opportunities to showcase Montana's top official as an ordinary guy.

But even by normal standards, the news value was pretty weak.  

That raises the question: How many grip-and-grin events should be allowed -- or even are necessary -- at the taxpayer expense? 

There's no perfect answer or precise formula. And everybody thinks the other party is abusing the system until it's their candidate in office. 

It seems to us Bullock's trips across the state that seem to magically coincide with fund-raising events aren't just accidental. And, it makes sense from a time and resource perspective to pair those events. However, it raises the question: Should the taxpayers of Montana be on the hook to foot Bullock's expense as he tries to raise more money? Why should he get a free ride when his opponents don't get the same opportunity? And, just saying that Bullock is doing what others before him have done is a lousy excuse that we shouldn't tolerate. Because someone else did the wrong thing shouldn't excuse it forever into the future.

Other governors in Montana have paid for part of their trips when a fundraising event was scheduled out of their campaign. Marc Racicot paid for part of the costs when he would "piggyback" fundraising events onto official business. When the trip was completely for fundraising, Racicot took a private plane.

Just as questionable as running around in the state plane for fundraising is Bullock's need to fire it up to go from Helena to Butte. We imagine that there's hardly a time savings for such a short trip (less than 70 miles), by the time you figure out shuttling to the airport and getting ready to fly. 

Both of these cases seem to have a common theme: Taking advantage of a taxpayer resource. 

Sadly, these cases will probably only renew efforts for lawmakers in the 2017 Legislature to restrict the use of the state plane for the governor. This is a time-honored tactic that has been used against governors of both political parties. We've cheered when those efforts have been thwarted because it seems like legislative overreach to try to tell the state's chief executive when he or she can or can't use the plane.

Yet, examples like flying from Helena to Butte have us rethinking the position. Is Bullock -- or any governor -- so important that he or she can't spare the extra time to drive between those two communities?

We hope it doesn't mean the Legislature won't start drafting rules about when the plane can and cannot be utilized. It seems rules like that only beget more rules and red tape.

But the instinct is understandable. 

Life in Montana means roads and roads mean driving. We're not sure why the governor doesn't have the same sensibility, especially for short distances.

And if he is using the state plane for fundraising, why not reimburse Montana for the expense? It saves on the charade of trying to explain why making sandwiches is essential state business.

The Gazette began asking for the governor's travel itinerary and emails related to this trip more than a month ago. We'd point out that a simple calendar request should not take this long.  

We're not certain what is so cumbersome about releasing Bullock's schedules or his email. 

It only gives the appearance that Bullock has something to hide, or that it looks exactly like he's taking advantage of a taxpayer resource. 

It's funny that this issue really has nothing to do with a plane and everything to do with openness, transparency and accountability. Few would argue that the governor of the fourth largest geographic state needs plane travel. It's a matter of using state property and funds correctly.