Not true. She would have been the first sitting American governor to be forced to declare bankruptcy, due to the personal expenses incurred by defending herself from the malicious "ethics" complaints.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Now, it's a more nuanced (and more serious, IMHO) complaint against her that the ethics laws that eventually forced her from office--despite the facts that she did nothing unethically while in office--the problem was that the ethics complaints allowed by law were essentially unlimited and unregulated and the defense of which was not paid for by state funds but by the individual office-holders, something that unscrupulous Democrats seized on and took full advantage of--were the ones that she herself championed and got enacted into law. She was hoist by her own petard, so to speak.
But the "quitter" complaint is just an blind and/or ignorant copmplaint, representing either a lack of understanding of the situation, and/or blinkered, biased partisanship.
Actually, according to an Alaska Attorney General’s opinion in 2009, “Executive branch agencies have authority to pay or reimburse the legal expenses public officers incur in defending against ethics complaints, if four conditions are met: (1) the public officers are exonerated of violations of the Ethics Act or other wrongdoing; (2) the officers acted within the course and scope of their offices or employment; (3) the expenses incurred are reasonable; and (4) appropriate sources of funds are available to the agencies to pay the expenses.”
It may not be much since the office-holder will probably have to front her own legal expenses before getting them reimbursed, but as you can see, an innocent officer can have her expenses paid for by the state.