I didn’t think it was possible, but if true, New York GOP Rep. George Santos’ exploits were even worse than we thought. And that’s saying a lot.
While most of the headlines scream “wire fraud” and “money laundering,” the 13-count indictment really outlined three big things that caught my attention.
First, Santos, 34, allegedly persuaded donors to give money to an LLC that he controlled, under the guise that it was an outside group solely dedicated to supporting his candidacy. Instead, he treated this money as his personal piggy bank. (Some of that embezzled cash allegedly went toward “designer clothes,” an investment that likely helped him keep his con going.)
ADVERTISEMENT
Second, the indictment alleges that Santos fraudulently received unemployment insurance, despite the fact that he was gainfully employed by an investment firm.
Under normal conditions, this would be a scummy thing to do, but as Santos allegedly perpetrated this fraud at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is especially contemptible. This means he took advantage of the system at a vulnerable time, and presumably took funds that might have gone to someone who actually needed them. (Incidentally, as a member of Congress he also voted for stricter qualifications for people to receive Medicaid.)
And lastly, he allegedly lied about it on his financial disclosure forms.
For all this, he could face up to 20 years in prison. What we don’t know yet—what an investigation would presumably discover—are the details regarding exactly how he got so much money so fast. But that’s for another day.
The question for today is this: How did Santos, aka “Anthony Devolder”—a guy with no resume but two names—get away with such a breathtaking level of flagrant graft that seemed almost certain to fall apart (indeed, he was outed before even being sworn-in as a congressman) long enough to win election to a district that includes parts of New York City and its immediate suburbs.
The Trump-era’s culture of corruption, no doubt, serves as a magnet for immoral scofflaws like Santos. This explains why he might have thought he could pull off such a con. But it doesn’t explain how someone acting so egregious and sloppy who isn’t named Trump could actually pull it off.
I think there are two big reasons. First, everyone has to admit this was a case of total incompetence by the Democrats, of both the national and New York state organizations. One of the big stories regarding the 2022 midterms was how well Republicans—like Santos—performed in New York.
Remember, this turned out to be a disappointing midterm night for a party that was once poised for a wave. Instead, thanks to a handful of wins like Santos’, Republicans narrowly took the House majority. This is to say that Democrats should have been more focused on Santos’s obvious vulnerabilities.
The second reason, and this isn’t original to me, has to do with the obliteration of local news.
Of course, one local newspaper, The North Shore Leader, did sniff out Santos’s lies, way back in September 2022. Although they did good reporting, the thing that first sparked their curiosity was an obvious red flag: Santos’s personal finance disclosure report showed “an inexplicable rise in his alleged net worth to $11 million.”
Amazingly, almost nobody in the media biz followed up on their reporting. The New York Times’ big Santos story didn’t appear until months later, on December 19, after the midterms.
Later, Santos’ Democratic opponent, Robert Zimmerman told The Washington Post there were “‘many red flags that were brought to the attention of many folks in the media’ but that ‘frankly, a lot of folks in the media are saying they didn’t have the personnel, time or money to delve further’ into the story. ‘This experience has shown me just how important it is for everyone to support local media.’”
For us conservatives who (rightly) criticize liberal mainstream media bias, this is a reminder that the media still serves a vital function. With the death of local news (for a whole bunch of different economic reasons), we are now left with national outlets that simply can’t report on every local story.
Back in the day when everyone bought their local paper (morning, afternoon, and evening editions) and tuned into local radio, someone like Santos would have been exposed from the jump. Nowadays, however, to the extent that Americans are paying attention, they are focused on Fox News or MSNBC—and if they are reading the news, it’s from a major national publication.
These national outlets are not equipped to focus on local corruption stories having to do with mayors, local sheriffs, or even House candidates. This leaves a huge vacuum where a lot of bad actors can get away with crimes and lapses that would have once been immediately discovered by the fourth estate.
Whatever happens to Santos, and one suspects he will not be back in the next Congress (but who knows?), we should at least use this experience as a wake-up call.
American democracy failed this stress test. And unless we can find some way to reignite the kind of vigorous reporting and local news coverage that holds politicians accountable before they get elected, there will be more Santos’ to come.
