Does the public really have the right to know about politicians' private lives?
It’s been a very busy couple of months for political sex scandals. Between the recent arrest of former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn in New York City for alleged sexual assault of a hotel maid, to the recent revelation that former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a child out of wedlock and kept it hidden for years, to the recent posting of lewd photos on Twitter® and Craigslist® by Congressmen like Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY; now resigned) and Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY; now resigned), the American political world is all “a-Twitter” (pun intended) with just how much hanky-panky our elected officials appear to get away with (or at least, they get away with it until they get caught).
When the Strauss-Kahn scandal first hit the news, much was made of the fact that the French people were horrified when U.S. law enforcement pulled him off an Air France plane before he could flee the country and escape extradition, not to mention the swift filing of criminal charges and initial denial of bail. To most French people, the fact a powerful man engages in illicit sexual dalliances is de rigueur, and therefore not considered news — contrary to most U.S. attitudes on the subject.
Frederick Lane is a Vermont-based attorney and privacy law expert who specializes in computer forensics and other privacy-related issues. The author of several books on privacy, including "The Decency Wars: The Campaign to Cleanse American Culture" (Prometheus Books, 2006) and "American Privacy: The Four-Hundred-Year History of Our Most Contested Right" (Beacon Press, 2010), Lane says that the French reaction to the Strauss-Kahn scandal versus the American one illustrates an overall cultural divide between the United States and Europe.
“The distinction between the U.S. and Europe when it comes to privacy and sexuality has to do with the United States’ unique history, as well as some fundamental differences in social structure,” he explains. “There was a strong moral/religious component to the founding of the U.S. from colonial times. Puritanism is a shorthand that was built not just into our legal statutes, but also our culture.”
Lane stresses that public sexuality tends to make Americans very uncomfortable, and that transfers into our increased scrutiny of public officials’ private lives. “We have a real antagonism towards public sex in our culture,” he says. “The French and the Northern Europeans in general are not as uptight about it as we are.”
There’s no doubt that the French are much less uptight about sex than Americans, but does increased openness really give them carte blanche to look the other way when a powerful international leader goes so far as to [allegedly] commit sexual assault, an illegal act in both countries?
According to Lane, European culture does make greater allowances for certain members of society. “There is a much greater class divide in Europe than in America, and the class system implicitly excuses some of the conduct of powerful people,” he explains.
Despite the implicit American squeamishness about sex, Lane argues that we don’t respect the privacy of public officials enough. “If a politician is engaging in any activity that does not directly affect his office and therefore is not public in nature, does the public really have the right to know? My response would be no,” he says. “However, if a politician engages in a private act that is also illegal, then yes, the public is entitled to know about it.”
Furthermore, Lane stresses that in today’s technology-laden environment, politicians can be their own worst enemies when it comes to privacy breaches. “If a politician engages in sexual activity in a public place [like posting lewd photos on the Internet], then all bets are off,” he says.
Mark Grabowski, a professor of communications at Adelphi University and an expert in media ethics and crisis communications, has a very different take on the subject. “People’s sex lives are a private matter, right? Not when it involves politicians,” he says. “Morality and character aside, there are many practical reasons voters should think twice about electing politicians who are unfaithful. First, many affairs involve a staff member or intern. When a lawmaker can’t keep his hands off a staffer, it ultimately hurts constituents.”
But it doesn’t stop there. According to Grabowski, sexual misconduct by public officials can constitute an abuse of power. “Many politicians’ sexual misconduct happens on the taxpayers’ dime, a clear abuse of power,” he says. “Mark Sanford, South Carolina’s former governor, used public funds to support an international tryst with his Argentine mistress. Former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey appointed a man he was allegedly having an affair with to a lucrative aide position even though he had questionable qualifications.”
Perhaps most disturbing, according to Grabowski, is the possibility for sexual misconduct by public officials to lead to public extortion and corruption. “All politicians who engage in unseemly behavior [like Rep. Weiner and others] become vulnerable to extortion,” he says. “Keep in mind, the public only hears about failed extortion attempts. What about the others? Surely, cheating lawmakers have traded political favors in exchange for others keeping quiet.”
Grabowski concludes by arguing that politicians who misbehave in their private lives may do the same in their elected offices. “Even if no tangible damage occurs, the fact that a lawmaker took such risks shows a serious lapse in judgment that should give voters pause,” he says.
While political sex scandals have been big news of late, the private lives of politicians also extend to their personal financial expenditures, which can lead to public scrutiny and outrage. A recent example includes ongoing revelations regarding Newt Gingrich’s personal finances, which not only seem contradictory to his public “fiscal discipline” image (such as his $500,000 line of revolving credit at Tiffany & Co. and a two-week luxury cruise that reportedly led his entire campaign staff to resign) but may also have violated tax laws (i.e., his reported shuffling of campaign funds and money from his various charitable organizations into his own personal accounts). Gingrich has responded by telling the media to focus on the issues instead of his pocketbook, but so far the media hasn’t listened.
Ken Koenen is a California-based attorney specializing in tax and real estate law who believes the personal financial activities of politicians are very much the public’s business. “Politicians and public figures like Gingrich owe much of their personal wealth to their political careers and serving in elected office,” says Koenen. “We certainly have the right to know how our elected officials are using our own funds. If we can’t rely on politicians to make appropriate financial disclosures and obey tax laws, how can we rely on them to do anything else?”
Koenen also argues that the relationship between politicians’ personal privacy and the public is a two-way street. “When politicians refuse to stay out of the private lives of individuals [when it comes to their legislative priorities], that of course gives us the right as voters to interfere with their private lives.”
Twitter is a registered trademark of Twitter Inc.
Craigslist is a registered trademark of Craigslist Inc.
