Opening the door to corruption

I realize I'm flogging this topic to death, but it doesn't do any good to dismiss the Spitzer scandal merely as an unwarranted and politically motivated fishing expedition by the Justice Department.

Glenn Greenwald, whose lawyerly credentials I respect, asks:

[H]ow can his alleged behavior -- paying another adult roughly $1,000 per hour to travel from New York to Washington to meet him for sex -- possibly justify resignation, let alone criminal prosecution, conviction and imprisonment? Independent of the issue of his hypocrisy -- which is an issue meriting attention and political criticism but not criminal prosecution -- what possible business is it of anyone's, let alone the state's, what he or anyone else does in their private lives with other consenting adults? [...]

[W]ould it be possible to pause for a moment for some critical thought about how odd this whole matter is? Prosecutions of individuals who hire prostitutes are extremely rare. It's even more rare when it's being done by federal prosecutors, rather than local or state prosecutors, who have to invoke an anachronistic 1910 federal morality statute, the Mann Act, to do so.

Yet here, this appears to be the result of a major sting operation -- complete with sophisticated wiretap schemes -- aimed at a rather insignificant "prostitution ring" (meaning: a small business that brokers meetings between prostitutes and clients, typically via Internet or phone). And in the midst of it all, Elliot Spitzer's name is leaked as nothing more than a single client.

Greenwald goes on to condemn the "bizarre, rather disturbing, and completely puritanical" moral condemnations coming from self-appointed guardians of the public moral fiber.

All true. And all irrelevant to the issue immediately before us. (The corruption of the Justice Dept. is another story altogether in which the Spitzer case is but one chapter.) Whether or not they are archaic and absurd, the laws are on the books. Spitzer flouted laws he had prosecuted vigorously while NY's attorney general. If he thought these statutes were unreasonable intrusions into private matters between consenting adults, he could have worked to change them. It was not his role as governor of New York to become a test case for their repeal.

Beyond that, Spitzer put the integrity of his administration at risk when he knowingly broke the law. As sophisticated adults, we may not care what an official does in his private life, but the official himself should care. When his private life contains dealings that must be kept secret for legal and public relations reasons, he is leaving himself open to blackmail, pure and simple. Those money transfers could have been construed as blackmail payments. To avoid exposure, Spitzer could have been pressured to use his influence in the award of contracts, or to grant clemency in a criminal case, or to hire a particular person for a lucrative or influential position in state government.

Spitzer's secret trysts with prostitutes were opening the door to corruption in government. For someone with Spitzer's career background, the blithe hypocrisy is breathtaking. In sum, that is what is so outrageous about this affair and why he deserves our condemnation.

Update: For more on the legal oddities of what looks increasingly like a political hit job by the Bush DOJ, read Scott Horton's take in Harper's (H/T Greenwald). Horton is an expert on the DOJ's targeting of Alabama's Democratic governor Don Siegelman. This DKos diary, by former DOJ lawyer "leevank", goes into more detail on the strange circumstances surrounding the investigation and complaint. Yes, it all stinks to high heaven. Unfortunately, Spitzer stinks too.