Thomas Van Flein, Sarah Palin’s personal lawyer, has taken to the former governor’s Facebook page to announce a victory in a lawsuit seeking email traffic between the Governor and her husband Todd.
The party seeking the email traffic had argued that Todd Palin, who held no paid position with state government during his wife’s tenure, was a mere private citizen, meaning that emails to him from government accounts, including his wife’s, deserved no protection from disclosure under the Alaska Public Records Act. Van Flein successfully argued that Todd Palin’s status as First Gentleman meant that he was functionally an adviser to the Governor, and that his emails deserved privilege under a provision that allows the governor to receive advice from staff in confidence.
And while Van Flein claims that the lawsuit was “sexist” and “demeaning” since it was “implicitly premised on the idea that a male spouse must somehow exert too much influence over a female chief executive,” his very own post shows that scrutiny’s been applied to spouses of both genders. Take a look:
In so doing, the court concluded that Todd Palin, as the First Gentleman, though unpaid, was in essence a privileged consultant to the Office of the Governor, and the court compared Todd Palin’s privileged consultations to First Lady Hillary Clinton, in which a federal court determined that the chief executive’s spouse “acts as the functional equivalent of an assistant to the President.” …It is refreshing to see a court resort to common sense and historical precedent. Further, as more and more women get elected to high office (What are they called now? – “Mama Grizzlies”?), it is notable that challenges such as this, which were based on sexist notions and demeaning attitudes towards women, are being rejected. This suit challenged Todd Palin’s role as a first spouse and was implicitly premised on the idea that a male spouse must somehow exert too much influence over a female chief executive. Hence the demand to “see those emails” from Todd Palin; but contrast this with decades of silence relative to communications to prior executive spouses – female spouses.
It’s hard to square Van Flein’s insistence in that last paragraph that female executive officer’s husbands, like Todd Palin, are targeted by records requests out of sexism with his favorable mentioning of a federal court decision in a case seeking the records of Hillary Clinton, a wife of a male political executive who was subject to a costly court battle over a records request.
Hillary Clinton is a woman, ya know?

Sarah Palin and her camp like to claim that things are "sexist," and that she's a "feminist," seemingly without having a clue what that really means. So...Palin's emails can't be disclosed because, like other First Spouses (primarily historically women), he acts as an unofficial advisor. But saying that he must have acted as an advisor is sexist. So they are actually kind of calling themselves sexist...or, rather, throwing out the word because it will get a rise out of people without thinking about the logic of the argument.
And this guy's a lawyer?
#1 Posted by laura k, CJR on Thu 24 Jun 2010 at 07:23 PM
The link posted in this story didn't work, could you look into it? I wanted to see if the cases were genuinely parallel.
#2 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 25 Jun 2010 at 07:18 AM
@Mark: Not sure why the link is causing trouble, but the article is entitled "Court Rules That First Lady Is 'De Facto' Federal Official." Robert Pear wrote it, and it ran in The New York Times on June 23, 1993. Give it a Google.
#3 Posted by Clint Hendler, CJR on Fri 25 Jun 2010 at 11:15 AM
Perhaps you have to live in Alaska to see what's so hilarious about Tom Van Flein's statements. We had two independent investigations into whether Palin abused her office during Troopergate. One investigation found that she had. The second one, which she requested from the governor-appointed Personnel Board, found she didn't.
The rationale behind this favorable decision was that Todd Palin was the one openly arm-twisting state officials to fire their brother-in-law illegally. However, Todd was a private citizen, free to talk to whomever he wished. Therefore there was no ethical violation by Sarah Palin.
So, Palin gets off the hook the first time because Todd is a private citizen, and she gets off the hook in the email case because the judge says no he's not, he's a trusted adviser.
It's beautiful, really, in a sleazy kind of way.
#4 Posted by Arctos, CJR on Fri 25 Jun 2010 at 01:02 PM
Kind of a stretch to compare Todd Palin's status in 2007 with Hillary Clinton's in 1993 via the health care bill, if you read the Times story. The latter was not simply an advisor, but held an unsalaried federal position. As for Todd Palin trying to influence some state hiring decision, why, I can't say how shocked I am! Gee, I wonder how many elected officials would be left standing under the criteria to which he is held by the anti-Palin derangement cases? Any?
#5 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sun 27 Jun 2010 at 10:13 AM