Eliot Spitzer wants to return to politics, and if you are a resident of New York City, and you have the ability to vote. Mr. Spitzer would like you to vote for him 
for comptroller. In formally announcing his attempt at a return to the public arena on July 8, 2013, he needs to collect about 3,800 signatures in just three days to put him on the ballot. I wouldn’t bet against him having the required number way ahead of schedule. One question is – what are the ethical ramifications regarding his return to politics?
Michael Gormley of the Associated Press quoted Mr. Spitzer as saying to the New York Times on July 7, 2013: “I’m hopeful there will be forgiveness, I am asking for it.” According to Gormley, immediately after his announcement Spitzer spoke to CBS television. Mr. Spitzer said he had “sinned,” ”owned up to it” and hopes the public will judge him on his record in public service.
Who is Eliot Spitzer?
At one time, he was New York State’s Attorney General and then in 2006, he became governor of New York State. He resigned from office in 2008 after word got out that in addition to being called governor, he was also known as “Client Number 9,” as a patron of a high-priced prostitution service.
In 2007, prior to the discovery that he frequented the “dating service,” Governor Spitzer was accused of using his influence to spy on rival politicians in a scandal that came to be known as “trooper gate.” Why then, is Eliot Spitzer being given the opportunity to try for a second chance?
He is well-known, that is true, and in politics, given the correct amount of scrubbing by publicists he could become a front runner pretty quickly. However, he was also an effective attorney general and he was not at all intimidated by going after corporations, white collar criminals and especially Wall Street types who were very well compensated. At that time, the market itself was in a free-fall. We blamed banks, insurance companies, CEO’s and the stock market regulators in general. We liked Eliot Spitzer in the role of bulldog. He was a man of means going after those of means; in a sense, he was a wealthy man of good standing up against wealthy who were not so good. One thing seemed true…Spitzer had a pension for pointing fingers at others which effectively kept other fingers from pointing at him.
Nevertheless, Eliot Spitzer had weaknesses and it they caused his downfall. The weaknesses spoke to his base instincts and in regard to “trooper gate,” they spoke to issues of perhaps paranoia.
The Abuse of Opportunity
I frequently talk of ethical lapses occurring when a number of factors are brought together; among these, when they are given the opportunity to make an ethical misstep. They take the opportunity because they feel that they are above the law.
It is difficult to imagine a more powerful position than to be governor of one of the most (if not the most) powerful state in the nation. Mr. Spitzer was a hard-charger; he was given his way because we always wanted him to get his “man.” But he was abrasive. Those who felt his wrath were given the opportunity (again that word) to deliver pay-back; they did.
He hurt his family and friends when he started to frequent prostitutes; he hurt his party and his reputation. However, I don’t think it was his sexual indiscretions that brought him down; it was his arrogance. He might have assumed that just because he could spy on others, that no one would dare spy on him. In a state as powerful as New York, there are so many favors owed and many favors “called-in.” When the wheels were set in motion, the entire system crashed down on him.
I cannot say why Mr. Spitzer chose to abuse his office and its opportunities; but I do know that eventually the consequences of un-ethical behavior will catch up and consume the perpetrator. I am very much for second chances, but –
Sorry?
I have read the articles and I have heard the sound-bites. I have heard the spin and the “bridging” to other issues. Here is what I am waiting to hear: “I am sorry. I failed your trust. I let you down.”
I am not a psychologist, but an observer of ethical behavior. I have heard apologies from CEO’s, middle managers, huge strapping athletes, the very rich and the very powerful. It starts with “I’m sorry.” It is what we learned as children. It is what we expect of the children in our lives. Surely an eloquent 54 year-old man is capable of uttering the same words.
Seems that it takes more than being “sorry” to earn a Second Chance. Of course, considering who I am and my background, I am a proponent of Second Chances. Yet, I know from personal experience that second chances take more than just being sorry. I was sorry soon after my embezzlement was discovered. That meant very little however to those whose trust I broke. Sorry is one thing and a change in behavior is quite another. So perhaps the question that the voters have to evaluate is – Has Spitzer Changed? What has happened to him that demonstrates a changed man…a man now worthy of trust. Am I his judge? Heavens no…all I am is a voice asking the question from a perspective that perhaps can cause those who will judge at the ballot box to probe deeply for their answer.
Your comments are welcome!
NO, I’M SORRY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Elliot Spitzer: Whistleblower who was buried after challenging banking fraud
July 10, 2013 By 21wire 2 Comments
21st Century Wire says…
On the subject of whistleblowers, we thought it pertinent to revisit the public testimony of a very high profile whistleblower, then Governor of New York, Elliot Spitzer, blew the whistle on the devastating collusion between the US government and major US banks and lenders which led to the housing collapse in the US – and which rippled across the global economy.
Here we can demonstrate how a sex scandal served both as the means to take down a career, and also as the smoke screen used to cover-up his substantive whistleblowing activities.
Elliot Spitzer actually revealed the true nature of the scandal early on, which was not highlighted well enough throughout the coverage that followed – of how a US federal department, the OCC, was clearly used as a weapon by bankers, against the American people. Spitzer warned in early 2008:
“Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.”
“Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.”
It’s worth noting here that soon after Spitzer blew the whistle on this scandal, he was suddenly pinned with a media driven sex scandal which culminated in Spitzer resigning as governor after admitting paying a relationship with agent/escort, Ashley Dupre, along with some $80,000 to escorts over the course of several years.
He called out the banking families, and then he was “dealt with”…
.
Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime
.
By Eliot Spitzer
Washington Post
Thursday, February 14, 2008
.
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers’ ability to repay, making loans with deceptive “teaser” rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York’s, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government’s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer is governor of New York.
–
THE REST IS HISTORY
[I didn’t write this, just sharing. Clarifying so I don’t hear anything about plagiarism ~Sebastian]