SACRAMENTO, Calif. - He was California's governor and hoped to be his party's next nominee for president or vice president. His slim chances were dashed when activists who didn't like him, his tax increases or his plans to cut school and health care funds mounted a campaign to recall him from office.

At first, politicians from the opposing party kept their distance from the campaign. No past attempt to recall a governor had succeeded. The recall seemed to have legs, however, and by June his supporters were worried.

The scenario may sound familiar. But the target was actually Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan and the year 1968.

Several governors prior to Reagan and all who followed have been the subjects of recall drives in California. Most drives fizzled fast. A 1940 attempt against Democrat Culbert Olson and the 1968 campaign against Reagan went far but still fell short of qualifying for a special election.

Thirty-five years later, a campaign to oust second-term Democratic Gov. Gray Davis is gaining momentum. What worries the governor's supporters is that this campaign, unlike earlier ones, is financed by a multimillionaire congressman who wants to replace Davis as governor.

The state faces a $38.2 billion budget deficit, far worse than Davis was predicting during last year's re-election campaign. Californians are upset about likely tax increases, rising college tuition and cuts to health care services. The budget problems come on the heels of an energy crisis. Davis also lacks the Gipper's people skills and has historically low approval ratings.

Davis and his supporters call the campaign an abuse of the recall process, noting Davis is being blamed for a budget crisis, not corruption, and that U.S. Rep Darrell Issa, a San Diego Republican who wants to be governor, is bankrolling the recall drive.

"I think recalls should be reserved for very substantial violations, when an elected official has violated the law or engaged in corruption," said Steve Smith, Davis' labor secretary, who is on leave to direct a union-funded anti-recall campaign. "That's simply not the case here. You can agree or disagree with this governor's positions. But he has certainly not violated the law, and frankly he has led the state through some very tough times."

A survey of history books, newspaper clippings and recall petitions housed in the state archives suggests that 31 prior gubernatorial recall campaigns weren't motivated by reactions to outright corruption. Rather, they were driven by frustration with the economy, dissatisfaction with specific policy decisions and just plain dislike of the incumbent.

The wording of California's recall provisions leaves open to debate just what constitutes abuse of the remedy put in place in the early 20th century.

Says Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a public interest group founded by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, "It was really intended to be an emergency stopgap measure. It really wasn't designed to be used as what appears to be a political ploy."

Counters Tony Quinn, a former GOP consultant who co-edits a non-partisan elections guide: "They said you, the people, should decide. If you don't like what he's doing, that's a good enough reason."

"Corruption was not the standard," Quinn said. "Unsatisfactory performance in office was the standard, with the belief that the system was corrupt."

California's recall was established in 1911 under reformist Gov. Hiram Johnson. Progressives, who also were enacting the referendum and initiative across the West, believed the public should have remedies against the powerful Southern Pacific Railroad and political bosses who controlled party nominations and the actions of many officeholders.

Neither the Constitution nor election laws set forth any standard of corruption that must be proven or even alleged before a recall can be launched. The law simply made recall extremely difficult. Before a gubernatorial recall election can be held, at least 12 percent of voters in the previous election must sign a petition of support. For Davis, that means 897,158 signatures.

It was 1936 before a governor became a target. Republican Frank Merriam was a Depression-era lieutenant governor who ascended to the top spot when Gov. James Rolph died. In another year, voters might not have chosen Merriam, but the scheduled election was just months off and the Democrats had a controversial nominee in socialist Upton Sinclair. The recall was a dud, but Merriam lost the next election.

His successor, atheist and Democrat Culbert Olson, faced three recall tries. Olson made the controversial decision to commute the sentence of a labor leader convicted for a fatal bombing. Some wanted Olson to block tax increases and cut back on Depression-era relief programs.

Meanwhile, the Ham-and-Eggs movement, which wanted a weekly pension for senior citizens, blamed Olson when the movement failed. The last recall effort against him came close to qualifying but fell short with the Nazi invasion of France.

Davis supporter Smith said the current recall drive ought to go the way of the previous ones. "Virtually all of those failed because the issues raised were not substantial enough to convince enough voters to sign petitions," he said. "Were it not for a very substantial infusion of money from one particular Republican politician who wants to be governor, the same thing would be happening in this situation."