There's a new expense looming in the recall effort against Gov. Gray Davis, and it has the potential to cost taxpayers millions more than originally thought.

But there's a catch: He has to win.

An obscure portion of the California Constitution says the state has to reimburse a candidate who survives a recall effort for "legally and personally incurred" costs. But no one is quite sure where the line is drawn on those expenses.

Davis, campaigning in San Francisco Wednesday, declined to say whether he would seek repayment of the nearly $20 million he is expected to spend fighting the recall.

"I just haven't dealt with that issue," he said. "We may deal with that over the next few days, but I think you understand I've been focused on this budget."

But political experts questioned the wisdom of such a stance, noting that a flat-out declaration that he would not seek reimbursement from taxpayers for his campaign costs might play better with voters.

"The smart move is to say 'I'm not going to pursue this,' " said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

And recall supporters were relishing the box they believe the stance puts the Democratic governor in.

"I dare him to say he wants the money," said Republican spokesman Rob Stutzman. "If he wants to help the state out, he can commit that he won't seek any reimbursement from the state. And if he does seek reimbursement, it will truly save the state money to recall him."

At issue is a portion of the California Constitution that allows targets of recalls to seek reimbursement from the state if they are retained in office by voters.

"A state officer who is not recalled shall be reimbursed by the state for the officer's recall election expenses legally and personally incurred," the Constitution says.

But because recalls have been so rare, experts say, there have been no court rulings to spell out exactly what costs the section covers.

"The (Fair Political Practices Commission) does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution, and as far as we know that issue has not been interpreted," FPPC spokeswoman Sigrid Bathen said.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer has not issued any formal opinions on the matter either, spokesman Nathan Barankin said.

"There is no case law on what that means precisely, so ultimately the way it could be decided is via litigation," Barankin said.

The last time a politician tried to invoke the reimbursement clause was in 1996, when state Sen. Mike Machado, D-Linden, was an assemblyman and had been targeted for recall because he voted to retain Willie Brown as Assembly speaker.

Machado, who had been accused of misleading voters by saying he would not support Brown, won the Aug. 22, 1995, recall election handily, with nearly 63 percent of voters saying he should remain in office.

Six months after the election, Machado submitted a claim to the state Board of Control asking to be reimbursed for $889,030.45 in expenses from the election.

Records on file at the board, which is now known as the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, show Machado sought reimbursement for all of his campaign costs -- including newspaper subscriptions, office supplies, water cooler and vehicle rental fees, salaries for staffers and fees for his campaign consultant, Ross Communications.

At the time, Machado argued to the board that such expenses fell under the section of the Constitution.

"I consider myself to have legally and personally incurred every expense for which I am seeking reimbursement," Machado wrote in a Feb. 29, 1996, letter.

The board didn't see it that way. In an Oct. 7, 1996, letter to Machado attorney, Joseph Remcho, the panel said it had "concluded that items paid from campaign contribution funds should not be reimbursed."

Machado's office said Tuesday that the only record it had involving such an effort was a request for $82,000 in personal expenses that was denied by the board. Machado did not pursue the matter because his attorneys concluded it would cost more in legal fees than he could recover, his office said.

Remcho, a prominent Democratic attorney who died in a helicopter crash in the Sacramento River Delta last January, argued at the time that because Machado ultimately was responsible for his campaign committee's finances, his costs should be considered "personal" expenses under the constitution.

But experts say the matter has never been settled in court -- and that even if Davis won the recall and sought reimbursement, the matter eventually would be decided in court.

Stutzman, the GOP spokesman, said he believes the constitution is referring only to minor personal expenses, rather than campaign funds, and that the governor is not personally wealthy and is not expected to pour his own money into the anti-recall effort.

"I don't see how he can (seek reimbursement) unless he personally funds it," Stutzman said. "Unless he's got something going in Grand Cayman that we don't know about, I don't think he's funding the recall efforts personally."

Davis political adviser Garry South said Wednesday that the matter had never been raised in strategy sessions.

"He's never brought this up," South said. "It's never been part of a conversation that I've been privy to."

The governor's spokesman also said he did not know how the constitution should be interpreted.

"I think it's murky ground," Steve Maviglio said.

Davis suggested another alternative: "I'm going to sign a bill having Darrell Issa reimburse me," he said. "This is all his doing, and he should pay for all the costs."

But analysts noted that with the recall fueled largely because of the state's fiscal problems, Davis might be better off saying he would not seek reimbursement, especially since he has constantly criticized the recall as a waste of taxpayer money.

"I don't think the governor can afford to declare that he's going to take public money for this," said Cain, the UC Berkeley political scientist. "He certainly can't say it before the election, because there are people who'll say, 'We can save the state $20 (million) to $30 million by not electing the governor.'