"Joe the Plumber" Investigated

[tomndebb]

When this story broke, it initially mentioned only that a single worker in the office had checked the records. That I found to be an extreme case of invasion of privacy, even if the worker never revealed what he or she found.

With the story now published that it was a quick check of finances to see whether publicly broadcast financial information corresponded to the officially reported information, then as long as the matter ended the moment no serious discrepancy was found (or that the subject was called to account for the discrepancy if such was found), I have less problem with it.

It is interesting that the only reason that the story actually made it to the news is that there are checks in place to identify when records are being examined. I find that moderately comforting.

[Hamlet]

@Fish

If the laws are being followed, I guess I don’t have a problem with it, but I don’t know what the relevant laws are.

What are the laws regulating the Child Support Agency’s ability to look up a sudden celebrity’s child-support history?

What are the laws regulating the Alaska governor’s husband looking into state trooper files?

What are the laws regulating the ability of people to pry into the passports of Obama, H. Clinton, A.N. Smith, McCain, etc?

Any chance for an answer to these, Bricker? I don’t know Ohio (or any state for that matter) law about whether the records sought were public or private records. If they were public records, accessible to anyone, I don’t see the problem. If they weren’t, well, then it is a problem.

Or are you trying to establish a bright line test on what records should be public and what records should be private?

[Magiver]

@Fish

See, I agree with this. If somebody goes on national TV claiming an income of $X, but reporters investigate and discover he has an income much less than $X, he should expect an audit. He would have nobody to blame but himself. I don’t know the law, but in my mind that’d be probable cause to investigate.

Checking up on the stats of every Joe Schmoe whose name appears in the newspaper? Not so much.

Reporters can investigate anything they want (within the law). We’re talking about a State employee who has access to public records. Which I think is your point but wanted to verify.

[MOIDALIZE]

From an article linked in the “Drudge” thread:

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

[pepperlandgirl]

@Fish

See, I agree with this. If somebody goes on national TV claiming an income of $X, but reporters investigate and discover he has an income much less than $X, he should expect an audit. He would have nobody to blame but himself. I don’t know the law, but in my mind that’d be probable cause to investigate.

Checking up on the stats of every Joe Schmoe whose name appears in the newspaper? Not so much.

I gotta agree with this. The man didn’t just ask a candidate a question and then quietly go about his business–if he had and somebody investigated, I’d be alarmed. Mr. The Plumber threw himself into the limelight, catching whatever bit of fame and celebrity he could, hoping to use said celebrity to get a book deal and even hint at a run for congress. And he wasn’t made famous for asking a question–his status in life, his income, his profession, his tax bracket–is absolutely key to Mr. The Plumber’s fame. Now, it seems to me that if you owe taxes and child support, the thing you should not do is make your current income and tax status national news.

[Mtgman]

I see a few scenarios. The first thing I’m going to assume is that conducting an investigation into someone’s records is de facto a negative action. There are very few results you could come up with which would make that person’s life better, and a lot which could make it worse, so I’m going in with the assumption that whoever did it didn’t have a pro-Joe motivation. This is not to say it is malum in se, if Joe is skipping child support payments then the net effect of this investigation could be positive, even if Joe’s life is personally made harder as a result.

That having been said, here are the scenarios I can think of and my views on each.

Cog in the machine takes exception at Joe the Plumber becoming a pro-Republican talking point, looks for ways to discredit him.

Verdict, bad. Civil servants shouldn’t use their powers for personal agendas.

Cog in the machine is curious about Joe and runs a search through everything they have access to.

Neutral to bad. Unprofessional at the worst, but I can’t get worked up about it.

Middle/upper management requests investigation because they’re annoyed about Joe becoming a pro-Republican talking point.

Very bad. Worse than a cog because management both has more resources(i.e. can do more thorough searches and/or more damage) and because they should not be using other resources for their own ends.

Middle/upper management doing it so they can cover their asses in case something comes out in another way, i.e. ex-Mrs. Joe the Plumber interviews about what a lazy deadbeat dad he was and talks about how she’s been begging the state to do something about him for years.

Neutral. No nefarious motives. I almost said neutral to positive, thinking it’s good for the agency to avoid embarrassment, but the reality is that if they’ve been doing a crappy job of enforcement then they deserve embarrassment.

Basically it comes down to motive. If the bureaucrat was motivated by partisanship, then I disapprove. Otherwise, it’s more neutral and it’s a natural consequence of your fifteen minutes of fame.

Enjoy,
Steven

[wonky]

I don’t have an issue if the search is limited to things that directly concern the state getting their money: back taxes, fines, child support delinquency, etc.

Other things that involve general nosiness would not be okay. For example, the “does Joe the Plumber have a plumber’s license?” or “How much is Joe the Plumber’s house worth?” are not searches anyone with the government should be running. (Unless there is a legal accusation that Joe is plumbing without a license or otherwise breaking the law.)

[Gorsnak]

I’m rather uncomfortable with individuals coming under scrutiny because of a news story that has nothing to do with the scrutiny in question. Joe makes a big deal out of being a plumber, and someone down at the trade board pulls his file to see if he’s actually licensed, that’s one thing. The question of his being a plumber has been raised by publicized events. Likewise his tax status. But I don’t see how the child support issue has come up, so the check on child support status feels somehow not quite right.

Now, I don’t think this goes so far as to infringe on anything remotely resembling a right. If you owe child support, and the status of your payments is investigated for any or no reason, you have no legitimate complaint at being caught for being behind. But as a matter of policy I think it’s a bad idea to initiate such investigations without some reason to do so. Such reasons could be - complaints, reason to suspect non-compliance, or even just coming up for a random check. Such reasons shouldn’t include - having just broken up with the sister of the employee who ran the check, being of the wrong race/ethnicity, or making the news for a reason completely unrelated to the issue at hand. This, however, is just a matter of policy. If someone is checked out for a bad reason, they still have no complaint if they’re caught.

[brazil84]

@TWDuke

I’m no fan of Joe the Plumber, but I hate the idea of a government agency subjecting a citizen to extra scrutiny because of a political event.

I’ve been trying to ignore “Joe the Plumber” as much as possible but I agree. Assuming that all he did was exercise his right to free speech.

[Bricker]

@Hamlet

Any chance for an answer to these, Bricker? I don’t know Ohio (or any state for that matter) law about whether the records sought were public or private records. If they were public records, accessible to anyone, I don’t see the problem. If they weren’t, well, then it is a problem.

I am pretty certain those records are not public.

Amid questions from the media and others about “Joe the Plumber,” Jones-Kelley said she approved a check to determine if he was current on any ordered child-support payments.

Such information was not and cannot be publicly shared, she said. It is unclear if Wurzelbacher is involved in a child-support case. Reports state that he lives alone with a 13-year-old son.

Or are you trying to establish a bright line test on what records should be public and what records should be private?

No, I’m trying to show that people that sneer at privacy advocates have suddenly discovered the brilliance of their myriad claims while at the same time some of those very advocates have mysteriously developed laryngitis of the keyboard.

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

The thing is… if you do owe back taxes, or are behind on child support… you’re not really entitled to complain about being called to account for that, regardless of what made the authorities take notice of you.

I’m not really sure I agree with that. Suppose I have a database of people with outstanding warrants. If I prioritize that list by cross-checking with registered Democrats, would that be OK?

I admit that I don’t particularly care about those who owe child support or have outstanding warrants. If this is political discrimination, it’s on the bottom of the list of things I’d like to solve.

I don’t think you can say that, as a general principle, no one may complain about prioritizing enforcement in pernicious ways. However, in this case, the state’s argument is that it isn’t political, it’s the raised profile. That’s might not be pernicious (though it does seem to be connected to First Amendment rights).

[erislover]

Even supposing a strong right to privacy exists, which I do suppose, I don’t see what this has to do with it. A government agent examining records which it is their job to examine based on public statements by someone pertaining to said records. Whence private matters, here?

If I had a problem, it would be with the amount of shit the government has on file about its own citizens, but compromises are everywhere (I also believe strongly in child support, so, whaddaya gonna do?).

Mtgman, interesting analysis, but to me a government agent’s personal motivations are irrelevant, if they’re following the law, unless the law itself requires some judgment on personal motivations. I don’t care if this person hates JtP or not; do they have the authority to look up anyone’s records, including sudden celebrities? Then, there you have it.

If the concern is that this could put too much power in the hands of questionable individuals, then I agree, which is why I like weak government. I don’t believe governments in general nor mankind in general has shown a propensity towards magnanimity that warrants such trust.

[Dangerosa]

@tdn

I’m uncomfortable with the idea. It seem pretty arbitrary to check on anyone who comes into the limelight. I’d hate to think that if I dared to speak up on the news, or make a public appearance, that some agency is going to try to find something to nail me for. That goes even if I have nothing to hide.

Its actually a pretty standard audit procedure - you audit randomly, you also audit exceptions - events, people or transactions that stick out. Its one of the reasons to keep your head low everywhere when you don’t want to get caught.

[Cervaise]

@Mtgman

Basically it comes down to motive. If the bureaucrat was motivated by partisanship, then I disapprove. Otherwise, it’s more neutral and it’s a natural consequence of your fifteen minutes of fame.

Actually, I see it a little differently. You included in your list the item I’m going to discuss, but I want to focus on it for a moment, because I think it deserves more than a throwaway.

My displeasure here (I hesitate to raise it to the level of “objection”) is with the “when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look” statement. In my view, in an ideal world, if some deadbeat is behind on his or her taxes or child support or some other legal-slash-social obligation, the applicable enforcement agencies should already know about it, and should be turning the appropriate gears to get the hammer placed on the offending individual.

I find it more than a little distasteful that said deadbeat could be largely escaping official notice until such time as he or she suddenly appears on the public radar, thus prompting the aforementioned enforcement types to “take a look” to see whether or not they’re going to be dinged for failing to follow up on some violation or other. No bureaucrat wants to open the morning paper to discover that an enterprising journalist has riffled through some public records and found that Joe the Plumber or Jane the Bricklayer or Jamal the Cocksmoking Bartender or whichever 15-minutes-of-fame yokel is in the headlines this week just happens to have some blemish on his or her record that has gone without any official action for however many months or years. Better to do a quick check on anyone who falls under the fickle glare of the “public spotlight” so when the reporters call you can readily say “yes, we know, we have an action already pending” so you and your peeps don’t look like a building full of useless chairwarmers.

In other words, this doesn’t strike me as partisanship: it strikes me as ass-covering.

Note, of course, that all of this assumes no significant privacy laws or policies are being violated in the course of this review. Police officers typically aren’t allowed to go snooping in the license plate database, due to past abuses; I presume there is similar oversight for the more sensitive aspects of child support records and whatever else was reviewed here. Presuming we’re within the law, I find nothing objectionable about the practice on those grounds.

No, my distaste is much more practical, centering on what this activity says about how the enforcement organs actually function in the real world.

[JThunder]

@Fish

See, I agree with this. If somebody goes on national TV claiming an income of $X, but reporters investigate and discover he has an income much less than $X, he should expect an audit.

Did Joe ever publicly claim any particular income level? Perhaps I’m wrong, but as far as I can tell, he only expressed a desire to purchase a business that would earn $250,000 or more in gross income. That’s not the same as making any particular claims about his present income levels.

[Miller]

@Parthol

I’m not sure I see the difference between this:

“Joe is a celebrity. Celebrity has no provable correlation with child-support delinquency, but let’s investigate him because he is, and if he’s behind on his payments, he has no right to complain.”

and this:

“Joe is Hispanic. Being Hispanic has no provable correlation with marijuana use, but let’s pull him over because he’s Hispanic, and if there’s pot in his car, he has no right to complain.”

I suppose there’s a technical difference, in that celebrity is not a protected class, but still, while I’m all for criminals getting their comeuppance, I’m not comfortable with this type of invasion of privacy.

I can see another pretty big difference there. Running a background check on someone is not intrusive. Someone could be running a background check on me right now, and I’d never know it unless they found something and acted on it. If Joe the Hispanic is getting pulled over everytime he tries to drive to the store, that’s a significant imposition on his life.

[wonky]

@Bricker

No, I’m trying to show that people that sneer at privacy advocates have suddenly discovered the brilliance of their myriad claims while at the same time some of those very advocates have mysteriously developed laryngitis of the keyboard.

How about just naming some names? It’s much easier to call people out for hypocrisy when you aren’t hiding behind generalities.

[Fish]

@Magiver

Reporters can investigate anything they want (within the law). We’re talking about a State employee who has access to public records. Which I think is your point but wanted to verify.

Yes — and if a reporter turns up something questionable, something that would serve as probable cause for an official to investigate, that’s acceptable to me. What it breaks down to is why the state official investigated.

They investigated because Joe’s a Republican? Wrong, but I don’t know if it’s actually illegal.

They investigated because Joe was on the news? Not really right, but I don’t know if it’s actually illegal.

They investigated because Joe’s child-support caseworker heard on the news that Joe claimed an income of $250K when he was paying child support for $40K? Acceptable.

They investigated because Joe’s ex-wife heard on the news that Joe was making $250K? Acceptable.

They investigated because reporters published a discrepancy in Joe’s alleged income and his taxable income? Acceptable.

They investigated because reporters published that Joe owed back taxes? Acceptable.

[Richard_Parker]

@Miller

I can see another pretty big difference there. Running a background check on someone is not intrusive. Someone could be running a background check on me right now, and I’d never know it unless they found something and acted on it. If Joe the Hispanic is getting pulled over everytime he tries to drive to the store, that’s a significant imposition on his life.

I agree that you’ve pointed to a legitimate distinction. But if I may press Parthol’s point. What if they were to only run background checks on people with Hispanic last names? Is that OK?

[Hamlet]

@Bricker

I am pretty certain those records are not public.

Then it seems a no brainer. They shouldn’t be disclosed to the public. I certainly condemn that.

@Bricker

No, I’m trying to show that people that sneer at privacy advocates have suddenly discovered the brilliance of their myriad claims while at the same time some of those very advocates have mysteriously developed laryngitis of the keyboard.

Ahh, the old Bricker “if you don’t condemn things you didn’t know about or do it loudly enough, you’re bad, bad, bad and probably a biased liberal” We haven’t had one of those posts from you in about a couple weeks or so, right?

You have to keep me abreast of these things so I can take care of it. Thanks, in advance.