Crime & Federalism

According to this news story:

Eliot Spitzer is going to resign his post as governor. Sources tell CBS 2 HD he's using the resignation as a bargaining chip with the feds. But after negotiating all day there was still no deal Tuesday night.

Spitzer doesn't have the luxury of playing deal or no deal. Experts agree that his involvement in a prostitution ring makes him damaged goods.

"I think his career is politically at an end," noted criminal defense attorney Ronald Fischetti told CBS 2 HD.

Sources tell CBS 2 HD the governor knows this and is using his defense team, led by Michele Hirshman, to leverage his resignation against potential charges he may face.

If so, what business does the federal government have in seeking the resignation of a governor? 

The Feds should indict independent of Spitzer's resigning (or not resigning).  You might say that, as Governor, he administers federal funding.  It's thus in the federal government's interest to ensure that federal money is overseen by good stewards. 

That argument fails since Spitzer did not commit any crimes related to his duties as governor. 

Interestingly, this raises "Paris Hilton-like" equal-protection issues.  When prostitution rings are busted, johns are rarely prosecuted for structuring.  Shouldn't Spitzer be (not) prosecuted under the same standards governing regular people?

Everyone will say, "He should be prosecuted like everyone else!"  But that's flawed, since "everyone else" wouldn't be prosecuted under these circumstances.

UPDATE: Elliot Spitzer has resigned:

There were rumors that the once-heralded Democrat had negotiated a plea deal to avoid jail time in the case, but U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia squashed those rumors. "There is no agreement between this Office and Gov. Eliot Spitzer, relating to his resignation or any other matter," he said in a statement to CBS 2.