Good Morning America ran a segment this morning with Chief Investigative Correspondent  Brian Ross about how Ruth Madoff has used stolen money to fund her millionaire lifestyle and create the cultivated image of sophisticated “old money.”  Now I’m no defender of Bernie Madoff (meaning that he’s yet to retain my services, though he would certainly be in better shape if he had), this extension of his crimes to imply that Ruth has sneaking about the aisles of Channel trying to dispose of the dirty cash is just ludicrous.

Worse still, the suggestion that Bernie Madoff and his family lived a life that bore any resemblance to old money is insulting.  Old money keeps it close to the vest, doing everything possible to squeeze a dime until tears flow from Roosevelt’s eyes.  They never like FDR anyway, since he was a traitor to his class.

Bernie Madoff ran a monstrously profitable enterprise, where he earned many millions.  That is was a Ponzi scheme doesn’t change the fact that on its face, it appeared to be a legitimate business and the paychecks he brought home had lots of zeros.  Need you be reminded that this is similarly true of many of our financial wizards, which explains why we lost so many of our children to the evil promise of investment banking?  It’s not like Bernie was the only Wall Streeter who was living high on the hog.

So Bernie brought home so pretty large checks on Friday, and Ruth went shopping.  There is no moral condemnation due her for having enjoyed the benefits of her husband’s “labor”.  If she knew Bernie was running a scam, that’s a different issue.  That she spent his money is no more troubling than any other spouse.

Why this matters is the fashion in which allegations of wrong flow downhill, tarring everyone who came after the wrongdoer as if they, by spending the tainted money, were complicit in the wrong.   One example was Ruth’s having enjoyed a dinner at Patroon for more than $1,900, which I assume covered some other folks as well since it doesn’t appear that Ruth was a big eater.  So the bill was a bit steeper than most of us would spend for dinner.  It’s not like she couldn’t afford it.  How does that make her evil?  How does that suggest in any way complicity in Bernie’s crimes?  How does that distinguish her from the spouse of a thousand other Wall Street bonus babies?  They make money.  They spend money.  Isn’t that the point?

The odor that is wafting in from this latest Brian Ross investigation is that of tainting others for living better than we do.  That it outrages the victims of Bernie Madoff’s scheme is fine; If someone stole a fortune from me and his wife was spending like a drunken sailor, I would be outraged too.  But to imply that it makes her a criminal is ridiculous. Yet this is the precursor to such allegations as money laundering for using the ill-gotten gains, once removed, to buy stuff.

There is nothing wrong, nothing at all, when we focus on the conduct that gives rise to a crime.  But as the connections become increasingly tenuous, distant from an act of wrongdoing and falling within the sphere of normal, expected conduct, and then try to spin that into some attenuated crime simply because we have such hatred for the people involved or they are easy targets because of what the masses perceive as their grotesque excess, these reports are no better than witch hunts.  Smear Bernie for what he did.  Maybe Ruth deserves to be smeared as well, for what she knew and for any complicity she might have in Bernie’s scheme.  But the fact that she lived the life of a woman of wealth?  Utterly meaningless to the issue or moral condemnation.

And as for “old money,” they would never live the lifestyle that Ruth and Bernie Madoff assumed. It’s not that they wouldn’t go out to dinner with them, though only if they had nothing better to do that day, but you can bet your life that they would have sat their with their hands in their pockets until Ruth picked up the check.