White House counselor Kellyanne Conway came under fire Thursday after asking supporters to push back against stores dropping Ivanka Trump's clothing line, urging them to "go buy Ivanka's stuff" in an interview on Fox News.

Experts immediately argued that Conway's self-admitted "free commercial" for Trump's clothing line violated a federal ethics law prohibiting federal employees from using their public office to make endorsements of products.

The statute in question states, "An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations."

In an interview with NPR, law professor Kathleen Clark explained, "The broader rule is that government employees shouldn't use public office for private gain. They shouldn't use it for their own personal private gain or for somebody else's private gain."

Fair enough.

Flashback to November 2016.

In an interview with Vogue, First Lady Michelle Obama explicitly acknowledged that one of the questions she considered when choosing fashion designers was, "Can I give them a boost?"

According to Vogue, Obama remarked, "There are definitely designers that I love, people I love to work with. And who they are as people matters. Are they good people? Do they treat their staff well? Do they treat my staff well? Are they young? Can I give them a boost?"

The implication here, of course, is that Michelle Obama deliberately exploited her position as first lady to "boost" the sales of private businesses.

Consider for instance Michelle Obama's much-celebrated decision to repeatedly sport clothing from J. Crew over the course of her time in the White House. In light of her comments to Vogue, the fact that J. Crew CEO Mickey Drexler donated $35,000 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2012, according to FEC records, and the fact that J. Crew Creative Director Jenna Lyons ( also an Obama donor) explicitly credited the first lady with a " huge lift" in sales, ethics crusaders targeting Conway should be equally upset with the actions of Obama.

No, Obama did not go on television and urge Americans to buy the products of specific designers. She didn't have to. Her impact on fashion designers' bottom lines was well-documented. According to the Huffington Post, a 2010 study by the Harvard Business Review found that "Obama's wardrobe created $2.7 billion in value for 29 brands worn over the course of 189 public appearances from November 2008 to December 2009."

Her ability to create sales spikes was a widely-accepted fact.

In this context, Obama's desire to "boost" designers seems to raise the same ethical questions as Conway's statements.

It is important to note one key distinction between the two women - the statute in question applies only to federal employees, so (depending on interpretations of the first lady's legal status) Obama's actions did not fall under its purview. But the central ethical question of whether it is appropriate for political figures to exploit their offices in an effort to benefit private businesses remains.

Kellyanne Conway would not be a direct financial beneficiary of increased sales of Ivanka Trump's clothing line, nor would Michelle Obama benefit directly from "boosting" business at J. Crew.

But if one is to criticize Kellyanne Conway for the ethical implications of exploiting her office to benefit private businesses, one must also acknowledge Obama's explicit admission of intent to do the same.

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.