The Other Prostitution Scandal; Why was Eliot Spitzer's lifestyle illegal, anyway?

Reason Magazine ^ | March 13, 2008 | Steve Chapman

[Eric Blair 2084]

Politicians take people's money with a promise to fulfill desires that supposedly can't be attained any other way. Prostitutes do the same, though by reputation, they are more reliable in delivering. It's not surprising for people in the same line of work to gravitate toward one another, as Eliot Spitzer and a woman named Kristen reportedly did in a Washington hotel room.

I understand why Spitzer's alleged hiring of a call girl was stupid, selfish, reckless, immoral and a betrayal of his family. What I don't understand is why it was illegal.

It's not as though sex is otherwise divorced from money. If it were, hot young women would be found on the arms of poor older men as often as they are seen with rich ones. Had the New York governor wanted to buy a $4,300 bauble to seduce someone of Kristen's age and pulchritude, only his wife and his financial adviser would have objected.

It was Spitzer's effort to hide this pastime that attracted law enforcement attention. Prosecutors investigated him not because he had lipstick on his collar, but because he took steps to conceal his patronage of Emperor's Club VIP. By transferring cash to accounts controlled by fake companies, he roused suspicions of political corruption. By now, he probably wishes he had only taken a gratuity to grease a contract.

It's hard to feel excessive sympathy when a colossal hypocrite is exposed. Recently, Spitzer signed a measure increasing penalties for men caught paying for sex, who can now go to jail for as long as a year. But schadenfreude is a weak justification for laws that intrude into the bedroom.

As with laws against illicit drugs and unsanctioned gambling, this policy tries to suppress powerful human appetites and consistently fails. What one New Orleans mayor said applies to a segment of every human society: "You can make prostitution illegal in Louisiana, but you can't make it unpopular."

Alternative newspapers, telephone directories and online sites are replete with ads for massage parlors, escort services and women "eager to meet you!"—proof that when individuals yearn to find each other for mutually gratifying transactions, they are bound to find a way.

Even the prospect of arrest and public humiliation doesn't deter a lot of people on either side of the business. What should be obvious by now is that they are willing to spend far more effort achieving these encounters than the rest of us are to spend preventing them.

Outlawing this commerce serves mainly to make things worse, not better. It assures income to criminal organizations with long experience evading the law. It makes prostitutes vulnerable to abuse. It prevents measures to protect the health of providers and patrons.

It exempts an industry from the taxes and fees that legitimate businesses have to pay. It squanders police resources that could be used to fight real crime, while clogging jails and courts with offenders who will soon be back plying their trade.

Supporters of the status quo say the sex industry is filled with victims of human trafficking—foreigners forced to work in servitude. Whether such modern-day slaves amount to more than a tiny fraction of hookers, however, has never been proved.

Similar claims have been made about migrant farm laborers and domestic workers—which is not taken as grounds to ban fruit picking or home cleaning. Someone whose very job is illegal, in fact, is an ideal candidate for such exploitation, since she is unlikely to go to the cops.

But all this is secondary to the priority of human freedom. We no longer believe the government has a right to prevent homosexuals or heterosexuals from engaging in sexual practices. In 2003, the Supreme Court had the wisdom to strike down a Texas sodomy prosecution against two homosexuals caught in the act.

"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," asserted the court. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Some brilliant lawyer ought to ask the courts why the state may ban one type of sex between consenting adults but not another. Maybe Eliot Spitzer would like to take it on.

[Eric Blair 2084]

I'm not unreasonable. If somebody can explain why consenting adults exchanging sex for money is any of the Gubmint's bidness, I'm willing to listen.

Just spare me the "it's for the chilruns" or "society has decided" or "they are all victims" nonsense.

I've never done it and have no interest in doing it. This is a philosophical argument.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Bud Light presents:

"REAL MEN OF GENIUS"

...(Real men of genius)

Today we salute you, Mr. Power Hungry Hypocrite Leftist Authoritarian

...(Mr. Power Hungry Hypocrite Leftist Authoritarian)

In your quest for higher political office and power you prosecuted everyone and ruined people in order to make a name for yourself...

...(You're an f'ing steamroller!)

Investment banks, research analysts, insurance companies, Native American tobacco retailers, $20 street hookers, jaywalkers, ticket scalpers, people who rip tags off mattresses, your mother

...(You're all going to jail)

The only person within a 500 mile radius you forgot to prosecute was yourself

...(Somebody convene a Grand Jury)

Other funny looking annoying rich men have to spend millions buying beautiful women condos, furs, BMW's, diamonds or proposing marriage in exchange for sex

...(where is the M3 convertible?)

You managed to get beautiful women by paying a miserly $80,000 for prostitutes over 10 years and risking criminal prosecution and public shame

...(Worth every penny)

Sure all pigs are created equal...but some pigs are more equal than others.

...(You're a special piece of pork!)

So crack open an ice cold Bud Light, oh $5,500 per hour call girl Governor...because the only people who were screwed here were the tax paying citizens

...(Mr. Power Hungry Hypocrite Leftist Authoritarian)

Bud Light beer. Anheuser-Busch, St. Louis, Missouri.

[Eric Blair 2084]

ping

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

BTW, has Spitzer actually resigned? I know he said that he would. But, has he flown the coop?

[wideawake]

It is a violation of justice to use other human beings as a means to an end.

[Texas Eagle]

What I don't understand is why it was illegal.

Because it is against the law. One could think of hundreds (if not thousands) of activities that one doesn't understand why said activities are illegal.

The only answer is because those activities were deemed to be illegal by people charged with the authority to do so.

Just because you don't understand why something is illegal doesn't give you special dispensation to violate the law.

Spitzer couldn't understand why illegals couldn't have driver's licenses so he sought to change the law.

If he couldn't understand why prostitution was against the law he should've actively sought to change the law.

[RepublitarianRoger2]

All laws are based on morals. I know you didn’t want any “society has decided nonsense,” but it’s not nonsense, a society’s moral values are the basis of all laws. Our society considers prostitution to be a repudiation of its moral standards, so it is illegal. I don’t think I have to go into WHY a society would consider prostitution to go against its moral standards; that should be easy to suss out, given our Judeo-Christian heritage, to name one factor.

[Eric Blair 2084]

He’s done. Paterson was sworn in on Monday. The guy admitted that he had an affair with Helen Thomas and Rosie O’Donnell.

He must be blind or something.

[Eric Blair 2084]

It is a violation of justice to use other human beings as a means to an end.

OK. Than we should all be in jail. Every citizen. But who would guard us if we were all incarcerated?

[Eric Blair 2084]

Because it is against the law.

The "law" is always right? The same law that allows the slaughter of unborn children? You have way too much respect for authority. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind. Otherwise they would have banned the plentiful brothels in Concord and Boston.

[wideawake]

OK. Than we should all be in jail.

Your conclusion does not follow from my major premise - which is likely why you neglected to supply a minor one. So much for your vaunted philosophical discussion.

[patch789]

Spitzer (allegedly) arranged for, a sex worker to cross
state lines.

Immoral or not,
Such an act is illegal.

[traviskicks]

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Gondring]

>Your conclusion does not follow from my major premise - which is likely why you neglected to supply a minor one. So much for your vaunted philosophical discussion.

Hope you don't mind me doing the honors (albeit semi-rigorously)...

It is a violation of justice to use other human beings as a means to an end.

All citizens use other human beings as a means to an end.

Therefore, all citizens are violators of justice.

Now, of course, you can dispute an argument that violators of justice should be in jail...

[secretagent]

If he couldn't understand why prostitution was against the law he should've actively sought to change the law.

Spitzer supported the prosecution of customers of prostitutes. Perhaps, in his search for public redemption, he will request that the authorities prosecute him.

[RatsDawg]

“If somebody can explain why consenting adults exchanging sex for money is any of the Gubmint’s bidness, I’m willing to listen.”

The all mighty $.

If its legal the government can’t make money off busting the people who do it. I am sure its a big business making people pay fines.

[Gondring]

It doesn't have to be a sex worker. Taking your girlfriend across state lines can get you charged, too.

See Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917).

Disclaimer...I am not a lawyer and this ain't legal advice.

[Gondring]

Perhaps, in his search for public redemption, he will request that the authorities prosecute him.

That is exactly what it would take to show he is truly a man of honor.

[secretagent]

It is a violation of justice to use other human beings as a means to an end.

Is it a violation of justice to date a woman, not for love, but with the expectation of sexual favors in exchange for expensive dinners and gifts? If so, is it the kind of injustice that merits legislation criminalizing it?

Also, is it an injustice rising to a level meriting criminalization, to severely berate someone in a search for a feeling of superiority?

[M203M4]

It is a vast oversimplification for most people against drug use, prostitution, etc, but some folks are of the mind that everything that is immoral (generally according to tradition, and/or a religious standard) should be illegal.

My impression is that most people against these activities are against them because of the activities they are in turn associated with - for example, the idea that prostitution carries with it related baggage which is injurious to innocent, passive parties.

I have two mutually compatible takes on the issue. First is federalism - the federal government should play no role. The current model where the legality of prostitution is decided at the state-level is a good model. For one, it is "self-correcting". If one state implements a policy bearing overwhelmingly poor consequences, then the flight of people and capital will force the law to be changed even if the voters do not. Second, it is constitutional (unless one subscribes to one of those liberal interpretations of the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause (but I mean, with such an interpretation, we could junk the constitution and the entire legal system, and just use the "necessary and proper" rule of thumb for every question).

My second angle regards the local (state level or lower) situation. Stating purely how I would vote (using my ballot, my dollars, and my feet) for where I live, I would prefer if the associated social behaviors influencing innocent bystanders were the focus of the legal system. I recognize that 'A' (immoral, but not harmful to me or other third parties) may in fact lead to 'B' (harmful to me or other third parties), but am adamant that a moral law is one which focuses on 'B'. For example, fighting B indirectly by fighting A means implementing gun control to fight murder, bank robbery, etc.

I sort of depart from many libertarians on the following point. I support LOCAL laws (below the state level) criminalizing "nuisance" behavior in public where 'harm' even if slight, can be measured. That would include prostitute solicitation anywhere on public property, shooting up heroin in public, doing coke, smoking MJ (or even smoking Tobacco or drinking alcohol if that is what is supported), public lewdness (by local standards), etc. If someone wants to partake in any of these activities in private (including private establishments like restaurants), I'm fine with that. Sex clubs, whore houses, whatever - just keep the dirt locked inside.

Now, don't mistake my rationale. I do not think that the government can change human nature. What varying LOCAL laws can do, however, is induce behavioral segregation. Same goes for tax laws. Drug users with drug users (once a critical mass have congregated). You catch my drift? That is the beauty of distributing rather than concentrating government power - society will ALWAYS produce garbage, and this is a way of providing for landfills. Truly toxic waste in some dumps, more mild stuff in others, and a of course smattering of biodegradable litter everywhere.

Left-wingers of course hate this model, because they desire "equality" across all length-scales. Some likely realize that federalism and more local extensions of it will leave them and their policies with drugs, bums, $30 hookers, gangs, criminals, welfare queens, and other parasites. Meanwhile, employment will go someplace where the greenhouse gas footprint of every fart does not need to be offset, where taxes are not 45% overall to pay for "progressive" social programs, where murderers and rapists are not coddled and forgiven, and so on.

[secretagent]

Debauchery - any sex outside marriage?

[Eagle Eye]

For the most part, prostitution is a more honest relationship than is dating.

[elkfersupper]

Just because you don't understand why something is illegal doesn't give you special dispensation to violate the law.

But if you understand why something is illegal and it doesn't make sense to you, or constitutes an intrustion by government into something that is not its business, you have an obligation to violate the law.

[Eric Blair 2084]

You're my favorite FReeper. You make a lot of sense. The only point that I would add in response to this part:

Now, don't mistake my rationale. I do not think that the government can change human nature. What varying LOCAL laws can do, however, is induce behavioral segregation. Same goes for tax laws. Drug users with drug users (once a critical mass have congregated). You catch my drift? That is the beauty of distributing rather than concentrating government power - society will ALWAYS produce garbage, and this is a way of providing for landfills. Truly toxic waste in some dumps, more mild stuff in others, and a of course smattering of biodegradable litter everywhere.

You have just described the achilles heel of the well intentioned central planning "war on poverty" that gave inner city folks housing projects and free government cheese for unwed mothers depending on how many fatherless children they have.

In a well meaning egalitarian social engineering experiment run amok, Gubmint bureaucrats put these folks in one place, complete with all the societal ills and turn it into a police state. They meant well though.

[Eric Blair 2084]

The Gubmint nailed Jack Johnson for violating the Mann Act early last century. For those who don’t know, he was the legendary Heavyweight boxing champ early last century. He was rich, black, and liked white women.

His crime according to the Mann Act was paying for a train ticket for a white woman, his wife.

[krb]

I started a company where I used a couple of really good engineers I knew (one, a mechanical and the other a computer guy) to design a device to my specification that I thought I could sell for more money than it cost me to make it.

My hope was that I could get people to buy my device and be happy that they did, without realizing that I earned money off the deal.

Didn’t I use those two humans in my endeavor?

[Eric Blair 2084]

You summed it up perfectly.

McDonalds uses people and their hunger and taste for delicious food as a means to an end too...money.

Let’s prosecute them. They gave the customer what they wanted...tasty unhealthy food that clogs their arteries. They get rich, you die in progressive liberal speak.

[krb]

He must be blind or something.

If you actually have a good point to prove then this is a stupid remark. You should consider it beneath you. Unless you are wasting our time on purpose.

[krb]

McDonalds uses people and their hunger and taste for delicious food as a means to an end

Delicious food?

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

If somebody can explain why consenting adults exchanging sex for money is any of the Gubmint's bidness, I'm willing to listen.

[Eric Blair 2084]

With all due respect, don’t you think the Catholic church should have done something other than transfer Priests who were accused of molesting young boys to another Parish?

They didn’t care before getting hit with civil lawsuit and indictments. Millions of dollars later, I still have to pay ridiculous property taxes in the DPRNJ and, AND private Catholic school tuition for my kids. I won’t win that argument with my wife, won’t even try.

Plenty of degenerate teachers with child porn on their computer in public schools too, don’t get me wrong.

Point being, clean up your own mess before saving the rest of the world.

[Cicero]

Why was it illegal? Well, technically, it was a violation of the Mann Act, which forbids the transportation of women across state lines for immoral purposes.

So, he did in fact violate a very clear law. And he was aware of that, because he was a lawyer and a prosecutor, and he had prosecuted others for much the same offense.

Furthermore, he built his entire political career by wrecking the careers and lives of others for breaking precisely this kind of law, and he often did it by abusing his post as prosecutor and “trying” it in the press.

Should there be such a thing as the Mann Act? Well, I think the purpose of the law was to prevent perverts from taking minors across state lines for such purposes. And, more commonly, to prevent mobsters and pimps from trafficking in women, and often abusing them, sometimes approaching sex slavery.

Should there be such laws on the books? Yes, I’d say so. But they should not be abused by ambitious prosecutors—always a danger no matter what laws you have. Spitzer was such an abusive prosecutor, and he deserved exactly what he got.

[wideawake]

You didn't use them at all.

You gave them an opportunity to engage in dignified and honest labor and remunerated them for it.

You both achieved shared goals collaboratively.

[Eric Blair 2084]

I’m with you. Spitzer was such a power hungry authoritarian hypocrite that I am willing to suspend my beliefs and say that in his case...

Lock him up and throw away the key. He ruined the reputations of good people to make a name for himself and advance his political career.

Indict him for being a total douche. If there is no such law, make one now and do away with ex post facto.

[Cicero]

And try him in the press, as he tried his victims.

[krb]

You gave them an opportunity to engage in dignified and honest labor

Therein lies the rub. You are engaging in petitio principii, or begging the question. You are assuming as a premise to your argument your very conclusion. You can't do that!

How is what I did any different than the contractual relationship that Spitzer had with Ashley? (in terms other than "because hooking is bad"...remember you are trying to prove that hooking is bad)

[romanesq]

How many hooker stories do you need to actually see to conclude ‘hooking’ is bad?

The results from the outcome of the women would appear to verify it over and over again.

If you don’t think so, we have a stretch of the Bronx where you can go hand out and see for yourself. Spend as much time there at ‘the Point’ as you need.

If one disagrees, I think putting out your female relatives on the street would be a good start to prove your thesis on how ‘good’ hooking is for you.

This analogy is made for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as a personal attack or encouraging said behavior by female family members.

[monday]

“It's hard to feel excessive sympathy when a colossal hypocrite is exposed. Recently, Spitzer signed a measure increasing penalties for men caught paying for sex, who can now go to jail for as long as a year. “

Spitzer had better go to prison for at least a year. Give him a roommate named Bubba.

[TradicalRC]

I love libertarianism. An ethos where they love things and use people has got to be ideal.

[TradicalRC]

Point being, clean up your own mess before saving the rest of the world.

Are you accusing this of being Narses' mess because he's Catholic? Are you a proponent of collective guilt?

[narses]

Yes. Correct. Me too. Of course, we live in a sinfilled and corrupt culture. Shrugging and accepting moral collapse ain’t my style. Sorry.

[narses]

Thanks. He makes good points, it is simply his conclusion that is wrong. That happens. At least he is doing the right thing by his children.

[Texas Eagle]

But if you understand why something is illegal and it doesn't make sense to you, or constitutes an intrustion by government into something that is not its business, you have an obligation to violate the law.

Whoa. That would be easier to follow if I was stoned. Or at least more fun to try to follow.

[timm22]

How many hooker stories do you need to actually see to conclude ‘hooking’ is bad?

...If one disagrees, I think putting out your female relatives on the street would be a good start to prove your thesis on how ‘good’ hooking is for you.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that prostitution is "good". I think the issue is: "what makes it is so bad that it needs to be criminalized?"

I can think of a few other careers with a lot of negatives aspects, and few redeeming aspects, that are still legal. Take boxing or other contact sports. Spending several years as a boxer or a rugby player can have serious affects on the body. A lot of people in those professions are involved in drug use or gambling. And a life spent throwing a ball through a hoop or beating someone up in a ring doesn't seem like it would satisfy one's deeper needs.

All of that for a spectator's weekend amusement. An amusement that can become obsessive for many people, leading them to ignore relationships with family or opportunities for personal growth.

With that in mind, do you think a society may also legitimately criminalize professional contact sports?

[elkfersupper]

Whoa. That would be easier to follow if I was stoned. Or at least more fun to try to follow.

Then I recommend you get stoned.

[Eric Blair 2084]

narses, me and you are on the same side. I understand that a country of fornicating, drug addicts will collapse much like ancient Rome. We disagree on the solution to the “problem”.

I think that more Jesus and less Government is the answer.

You seem to think that more Jesus and more Government is the answer.

I’ll put it to you this way in a hypothetical post and response and spare you the silly “gotcha” factor:

Me: Do you believe in God?
You: Yes.
Me: Do you believe in Heaven and Hell?
You: Yes
Me: Do you believe that sinners (johns, hookers) will be punished with eternal damnation? (ie...eternity listening to Michael Bolton CD’s on a continuous loop?)
You: Yes
Me: Than why do you care if on this Earth, those sinners are punished with a $50 fine and a suspended sentence?
You: I dunno.

[narses]

“You seem to think that more Jesus and more Government is the answer.”

Nope. We have plenty. I just disagree with you on taking the vice laws (drugs, prostitution and the like) off the law books. If a particular jurisdiction is goofy/stupid/nihilistic enough to do so, they will reap what they sow. For me and mine, we will fight to keep the fields weeded and some sense of order in our public life.

[narses]

Plenty of government that is. More of Our Lord is always a good idea.

[timm22]

Then I recommend you get stoned.

Aw, go easy on him. "Let he who is without sin..."

[Drew68]

If somebody can explain why consenting adults exchanging sex for money is any of the Gubmint's bidness, I'm willing to listen.

I've always had a hard time understanding the illegality of prostitution. If you think about it, it really doesn't make any sense.

Taking a girl out and buying her an expensive gift and ending the date with sex is a legal activity. Dispensing with the date and giving her the cash value of the gift you were going to buy her is illegal. However, if you give her cash and film the sex for your adult website it becomes legal again.