One of my favorite columnists William Anderson gives his take:
...for all of the "cleaning up Wall Street" rhetoric that came from Spitzer and his main supporter, the New York Times, his actions were more about shaking down firms and forcing them to pay for legal protection than "saving capitalism from itself." For example, he fingered PayPal while the fledgling company was maneuvering to have an initial public offering (IPO) several years ago.
PayPal was permitting its payment mechanism to be used to pay for online gambling, which then was legal. However, Spitzer told the principals of the company that he would block their IPO and give them trouble unless they paid his office $150,000. Now, had he come in with a fedora and Sicilian accent, people might have understood he was running a protection racket. But, instead, the New York Times insisted he was "protecting the public integrity."
It's amazing to me that he was elected into office with 70 percent of the vote. Buh-bye.
Read the rest of Professor Andersons column here and check out his archives here. I originally started reading his stuff from the Duke Lacrosse Case but his columns on the abuses and often criminal (as well as nonsensical) activities of the feds in the name of "justice" are what made me a fan. This is a good one about Martha Stewart and here is a different perspective on fighting terrorism.