Question

Today many politicians hire private investigators to check out their opponents' credit reports, medical records, high school and college grades, neighbors from when they grew up—in short, anything seems to be fair game. Does this sort of scrutiny act as a deterrent to viable potential candidates? Why or why not? If so, what can be done about this invasion of privacy? Or is it just the price one must pay for seeking public office today? If not, how does this practice improve the political process (citizens and candidates)?

Answer 1

While it is true that many politicians hire private investigators to fish for information that can potentially malign the image of their opponents, I do not believe it deters potential candidates. The spread of such private information can affect voting patterns, but I would think that more or less every potential candidate possesses a history of sorts that is not fully congruent to their projected persona. When one chooses to become a public figure, the loss of privacy is a price that they must pay. This practice also improves the political process to a considerable extent. Citizens are able to make a more thorough assessment of the political candidate, not solely based on their well-reheared speeches but by their past history as well. The candidates, on the other hand, become compelled to acknowledge their past acts and assume a degree of transparency in front of their voters.