Ignorance of the law is no defense. Unless, it seems, the law is broken by those who want a job making laws.

No one expected the state Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections to hammer the five 1998 state-office candidates who accepted contributions to retire campaign debt earlier this year that exceeded the new limits that went into effect Jan. 1. On the other hand, no one expected the commission or the candidates to insult the public’s intelligence with the malarkey that made it all go away.

The violations, in the monetary sense, were minor — generally no more that a few hundred dollars above the new $500 limit for gubernatorial candidates and $250 for legislative. Not so minor were how easily violations of a law initiated and passed by Maine voters were brushed aside.

The candidates’ defense is that they didn’t know about the new law — a law that was the subject of a major Clean Election Law petition drive and referendum campaign in 1996. The implication is that the new limits are written in fine print and buried deep in the appendix of one of the dustier volumes of Maine law.

Here’s how hard this new law is to find: Go to the nearest set of Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (that collection of dark red books found in most town offices); Locate Title 21-A (labeled, oddly enough, “Elections”); open it to Chapter 13 — Campaign Reports and Finances; then to Subchapter II — Reports on Campaigns for Office; finally to Section 1015 — Limitations on contributions for office.

There, buried deep in the second sentence is this: “Beginning January 1, 1999, an individual may not make contributions to a candidate in support of the candidacy of one person aggregating more than $500 in any election for a gubernatorial candidate or more than $250 in any election for any other candidate.” The same restriction for committees, corporations and associations is described in the next paragraph.

Even worse than the lame excuses are the sources. Democrat gubernatorial candidates Tom Connolly is a lawyer — surely he knows his way around the MRSA. Assistant Senate Majority Leader Anne Rand and Sen. Marge Kilkelly, both veteran lawmakers, are far too knowledgeable to be so uninformed. Robert Spear, a former legislator and now Maine’s new agriculture commissioner, ought to recognize a load of fertilizer when he sees one. Only E. Stephen Murray, who ran unsuccessfully for the Senate, is enough of a newcomer to claim inexperience.

The commission justifies its no-fault finding by pointing to the clause that violations must be done willingly and knowingly. Usually, that clause is meant to protect the truly innocent from being duped — such as by a donor who feeds illegal contributions through false fronts. At the very least, these candidates willingly and knowingly failed to read the rules of the game they were playing and they got off without even a scolding.

Not to say the ethics commissioners are a bunch of softies. In recent months, they’ve fined Rep. Stavros Mendros $1,000 for being late with an income disclosure, the Christian Civic League $1,875.12 for failing to report in-kind contributions and unsuccessful House candidate John Wade a record $15,000 for failing to file finance reports on time. They simply knew too much for their own good.