The complaint alleging that former Gov. Sarah Palin violated the state ethics law when she signed a book deal relies upon a strained reading of state law.

Nevertheless, Palin's disclosure that she received $1.25 million from her book publisher illustrates the need to clarify that law.

Those who thought Palin's book contract was wrong will be doubly sure now. Should anyone be able to write a $1.25 million check to a sitting governor in exchange for anything? That's an enormous amount of money.

One must wonder, in fact, whether it partially prompted Palin's resignation in July, a decision that greatly disappointed many Alaskans.

Still, it's hard to see how existing law could have prohibited Palin from accepting that money.

Here's the relevant sentence in the state's executive ethics act: "The head of a principal executive department of the state may not accept employment for compensation outside the agency that the executive head serves."

Obviously, $1.25 million is "compensation," and a lot of it. The ethics law defines compensation as "any money, thing of value or economic benefit ... in return for services."

But was Palin's book-writing effort "employment"? It's hard to see it that way. The law's prohibition on "employment for compensation" seems to refer to a governor performing actions that serve a third party's interests.

In writing an autobiography, it seemed that Palin was serving her own interests.

Of course, an opposing argument can be made, and has been. The book publisher, HarperCollins, has an interest in making money from the book, a relatively apolitical goal. But the company's owner is media mogul Rupert Murdoch, a man with a clear conservative political agenda. So some conspiracy theorists have already suggested unseemly motives behind giving Palin such a large contract.

Regardless of such wild theories, the publicly known facts alone justify another look at the ethics act when the Legislature convenes in January.