The Spitzer Saga and Natural Law

Brace yourself. For the foreseeable future the talking heads will be mounting their high horses daily, rallying themselves around the faults that have recently come to light regarding the Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer.

Already the puns are starting to roll in. Clever talking heads are playing bumper music on the radio like "love potion number 9" (in reference to Spitzer's client number at the Emperor's club, a high-dollar prostitution ring) or inserting crank callers in their lineups posing as prisoners, counting down the days until Spitzer heads to prison, assuring everyone that ol' Eliot will be "very popular" amongst the boys in prison. I'm still waiting for the usual journalistic layups like "Spitzer was caught in a compromising position!" or "he pulled out money to buy sex!" All that's missing in these exchanges is the awkward high-five between talking head and producer. See? I made a pun! And they say I'm not clever...

The old adage is true: sex sells. And nothing sells better than a political sex scandal, especially one involving high-dollar prostitutes. In fact, this scandal may have enough firepower to finally get Greta Van Sustern to finally stop talking about Natalie Holloway. I'd bet the over on that one, but only if pictures of "Kristen," the high-priced, 105 lb. brunette prostitute are released.

And how do I know "Kristen" is a 105 lb. brunette? It's on the front page of CNN. The political sex scandal reporting template may be well-worn, but it works every time. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during Spitzer's press conference yesterday. If I were to guess what it looked like, I'd say the press consisted of approximately 70% males, all older, "experienced" reporters, determined to draw out every nugget of juicy information possible. And by juicy, I mean the details surrounding the sexual encounter, not the reporters getting their 5 W's. The sexual consternation amongst the reporters was probably so prevalent you could have cut it with a knife. Although I'm sure the questions (if Spitzer fielded any, that is) were professional in nature, the reports they filed are anything but. We have evidence of that, right on the front page of CNN.

But what's really at stake here? Surely fewer and fewer people are surprised at the prospect of irresponsible media reporting, but what's the deeper message that is buried between the bylines? The Governor's record notwithstanding (try to ignore personal bias against the man), let's examine the rest of the report and see if we can learn anything from the reasons given for Spitzer's name appearing in a federal affidavit.

First, Spitzer's name surfaced on the federal radar late last year because (from CNN):

"A large amount of money had been suspiciously transferred from one account to another. Federal law requires a banking institution to file a Suspicious Activity Report when the institution suspects a transaction is linked to a federal crime."

Annoyed yet? It gets worse. More specifically (from CNN):

"...banks are required to report to the IRS any transactions totaling $5,000 or more if the transactions "involve potential money laundering or a violation of the Bank Secrecy Act."

The way I see it, Spitzer's privacy was violated the moment his bank filed the "Suspicious Activity Report" with the IRS. No mention was made as to whether or not Spitzer's bank had attempted to contact Spitzer to discuss the transfer of funds. Instead, the bank (under the Orwellian named "Bank Secrecy Act") filed the report with the federal government, initiating a federal investigation of a private citizen. The question begs to be asked: why didn't the bank, a private institution, upon suspecting suspicious activity from a client (private citizen), either contact the client about the transfer or, if necessary, terminate services to the client altogether?

The subtle message here is that the line between the federal government and private institutions is becoming more difficult to define. Why is the federal government snooping around, requiring private institutions to report information about private citizens to them? I have a hard enough time getting valuable information from my bank when I need it, yet when the federal government needs information on someone it can just waltz right in and seize it. Where's the sense in that?

The second concern I have with this situation stems from my belief that private citizens have lost the right to freely exchange goods and services with one another. Yes, sex is a good, and it should be allowed to be freely exchanged on the market the way every other good is exchanged, without government interference. In this instance, "Kristen" supplied a service to Spitzer at a mutually agreed upon price. Neither party was coerced into the agreement, so what's the problem? As the comic George Carlin once mused, "selling is legal, fucking is legal, so why isn't selling fucking legal?" Indeed, George, indeed.

Now, you may morally disagree with Spitzer's decision to engage in sexual activity with a prostitute on account that he is married and has three children, but that doesn't change the argument that the government has no business in preventing the free exchange of goods and services on the open market. Nor does it change the fact that a private sexual act, between two consenting adults, has no business being illegal. If you subscribe, as I do, to the theory of natural law, you understand what I'm saying. Natural law goes hand in hand with libertarianism, and the law states that man should be free to do what he wants with his life and his property, so long as he does not initiate aggression against another human being or that person's property. To author legislation on perceived moral deficiencies in society is to engage in endless demonization of individuals for victimless infractions. The Puritans tried this during their infamous witch hunts in Salem, Massachusetts...and we all know how well that turned out.

The beauty of Natural Law is that it will apply to all people, in all places, at any time throughout history. In other words, despite what you know or have read about Spitzer, the law still applies to him. The larger story, and the one that is guaranteed to be ignored in favor of details surrounding the "illegal" sex act, is how far the federal government is allowed to reach--unchecked--in to your personal life. In Spitzer's case, the federal government was in his wallet and his bedroom, without Spitzer's approval. I don't know about you, but I think the federal government already spends way too much time in my wallet extracting taxes...and I really don't want them in my bedroom.