The Marriage of State & Press

by S.M. Oliva, Mises Economics Blog
Aug. 04, 2010

This has been coming for awhile. Yesterday Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus--the wife of Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz--wrote a critical column on the ethical troubles of House Democrats Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters:

I’m certainly not suggesting that most lawmakers are as heedless of ethics rules as Rangel and Waters appear to have been -- although many members of the public appear disposed to believe so, and the seemingly endless stream of ethics revelations reinforces this misperception.

But there is something in the congressional atmosphere of compliant aides and fawning courtiers that enables and encourages their sense of ordinary-rules-don’t-apply-to-me entitlement.

Marcus likes to take shots at the shortcomings of government officials, which I certainly welcome. But there’s the nagging hypocrisy of her own husband’s career. You see, before his elevation to the exalted, omnipotent status of FTC commissioner, Jon Leibowitz was himself a “compliant aide and fawning courtier” to the Senate Democratic leadership, notably Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin. Leibowitz spent fourteen years as a Senate staff lawyer, which he parlayed into an FTC appointment. Compared to his four immediate predecessors as FTC chairman, Leibowitz was woefully under-qualified for the job. But he had powerful political patrons, so talent and experience were secondary concerns. Being a fawning courtier has its benefits.

Anyhow, I sent Marcus an email challenging her hypocrisy. Amazingly, she took the bait and replied:

My husband is a hard-working, dedicated public servant. He has spent all but a few years of his career in the private sector because he cares more about making good public policy than making big bucks. In my public capacity, I do not write about or participate in editorial discussions that touch on FTC-related matters. In my private capacity, I could not be prouder of him and the work he has done.

At the outset, I’d note that Leibowtiz’s “few years…in the private sector” was actually a lobbyist gig at the Motion Picture Association of America. I wouldn’t call that “private sector.” More to Marcus’s point, if her husband is really isn’t in it for the money, then I assume he won’t take a high-paid law firm or consulting job when his FTC term expires next month. A hard-working, dedicated public servant would never cash-in on his office for personal gain, right?

And while it’s always heartwarming to see a wife stand by her man, given Marcus’s professional position at the Washington Post, it’s quite revealing that she “could not be prouder” of a husband who has relentlessly abused his power and violated the civil rights of American citizens. Was she proud of her husband for falsely prosecuting an 85-year-old man, illegally disclosing his private financial data, and refusing to compensate him for the FTC’s misconduct? Was she proud of him for rigging an FTC administrative proceeding against a small, non-profit hospital that resulted in the hospital losing millions in legal fees and capital investment? Was she proud of him for dragging out the Rambus litigation for seven years despite rulings from four independent tribunals that rejected the FTC’s legal theories? Really, I could go on all day.

And while Marcus talks about her “private” and “personal” capacities, I don’t see how you can separate the two. The Washington Post does not have a good track record when it comes to critical coverage of the FTC. That’s because there is no critical coverage. In the hospital case I mentioned above, one of Marcus’s colleagues on the editorial page actually aided and abetted the FTC’s illegal trial-rigging. The writer told me point-blank he would not report any details to the public that would undermine the FTC’s case. At least Leibowitz is a grateful husband, abusing his authority as FTC chairman to convene a series of hearings on how to save the Post and other traditional newspapers from competing information sources--like this website--that threaten to reduce the quantity of positive coverage the state receives.