Please note: This piece originally appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
Note also: I took some time off this summer from blogging; I hope to be more active again this fall.When are elected officials’ personal lives a matter of legitimate public concern? U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minneapolis refuses to discuss her personal life, including her marriage and possible extramarital romantic relationships. She declares it is not the public’s business. While generally an elected official’s personal life is not the public’s business, there are cases where it is. For Omar, her personal life has become a public concern, and she has an obligation to respond to questions about it, much in the same way Donald Trump does.
Generally what others do in their private lives is none of our business. Traditionally in American culture there is a public/private wall. Matters that do not affect others are private. If they do impact others perhaps the public has some right to know more or do something, but generally only to prevent harm to others. Our society is premised on the belief of a right to privacy; that no government official has the right to tell us what to do with our private life, including our sexual behavior.
The same rule traditionally applied to public officials. The focus in theory was on their stand on public issues. Running for or serving in public office did not constitute a privacy waiver.
This public-private wall when it came to public officials cut two ways: It respected the privacy of public figures and didn’t deter people from running for office out of fear embarrassing things in their private or family lives. And yet the wall hid many stories, the many extramarital affairs of President Kennedy for example, the affairs that so many other male elected officials had, as well as other issues. Should the public have been informed about them? Should we not hold public officials up to a higher standard of personal conduct?
One theory says that what public officials do in their private lives is not the public’s business so long as private behavior does not impact their job. Another holds that the public has a right to know and judge because personal behavior tells us something about public performance.
Supporting the latter theory, few of us can lead dual lives – be ethically good or bad in private but the opposite in public. Most of us live more integrated lives – who we are and how we behave in our personal lives is suggestive of our public behavior. Character matters. There is a connection between private and public ethics. This is what the “Me Too” movement is about in part. To be ethical as a public official one needs to be personally ethical. I as a voter may not know or grasp complex issues of public policy, but if I can trust a person’s character then I will trust that person to make good choices as an elected official.
Increasingly the belief that one’s personal life is a marker of public ethics accounts for part of the erosion of the right to privacy for public officials. So, too, does the increased celebrity culture of American politics, by which candidates for office make their personal biographies the centerpiece of their campaigns. Traditionally, the private lives of Hollywood or musical stars is the core of gossip and celebrity magazines. This is because these individuals often make their private lives public through interviews, their music, or simply out of desire to get media attention to help their careers. These individuals have generally chosen to put their private lives in play to advance their careers.
Public officials open their private lives to public scrutiny, too, when they put their personal behavior into play. A personal affair of a politician may not be the public’s concern, but if the candidate runs as a “family values” candidate it may be relevant. Additionally, elected officials who do things privately that break the laws they are sworn to uphold may be an example. Is it illegal to pay someone so that they will not disclose an affair you had with them? Generally no. But in the case of Donald Trump, paying Stormy Daniels to silence her so the story of the affair would not affect the 2016 presidential election violated federal campaign finance laws. Or maybe his business dealings implicate his presidential duties, which is why his tax records are relevant. He should be held accountable for his behavior to make sure his personal interests do not compromise his public duties.
Ilhan Omar refuses to comment on her private life. This is despite legitimate questions regarding her marriage status and how it may relate to immigration, tax, and Minnesota election laws. The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board already adjudicated that Omar misspent campaign funds and perhaps used them for private purposes. Now there is a Federal Election Commission complaint regarding her possible misuse of congressional campaign funds to pay someone who worked for her and with whom, as alleged in recent divorce filings, she may be romantically involved.
