George Santos Fabricated Campaign Has Changed Elections for the Foreseeable Future

Our generation has some of the greatest actresses and actors in history. They have starred in blockbusters, sitcoms, and Broadway shows, but one actor has recently found his spotlight on an entirely new stage: a congressional election. Fueled by wild improvisation and creative fabrication, 34-year-old Congressman George Santos has recently joined this list of actors, and just last November, he decided to put on a show. 

George Santos is a Republican politician who was selected as a representative for New York’s 3rd congressional district in the 2022 election. He scored about 54% of the vote over his opponent, Democrat Robert Zimmerman. However, since his victory, it has become clear that Santos fabricated multiple aspects of his campaign, calling into question the legitimacy of his win and overall qualifications. Santos made multiple false claims pertaining to his heritage, income, history and education. These embellishments could have had a larger effect on the election than people realize. According to a study by the Copenhagen Business School (CBS), voters tend to respond to background characteristics of a candidate, specifically their education, income and gender. Therefore, Santos' lies about his background could have misled his constituents into voting for him, when they otherwise would not have if they had known the truth. All of his lies could have ultimately influenced voters to side with him because they related to his fabricated background. Within his cast of lies, three of them stood out the most in regards to influencing voter patterns.

The first lie was his experience of the impact of 9/11. Santos stated multiple times throughout his campaign that his mother died during the tragic events of the 9/11 terrorist attack. However, this claim has been proven false. Research shows that Santos’ mother died in 2016, 15 years after the attacks. In fact, she was not even in the country when the terrorist attack occurred. Within the area he was running, New York City, the 9/11 terrorist attacks have a massive emotional effect on the community. Many members of his district most likely have a direct connection to the event such as family members and/or loved ones that were in the towers. Therefore, by lying about his own connection, he was likely attempting to empathize with his constituents to gain their support. 

The second lie was his education level. Santos claimed that he attended and graduated from Baruch College with high honors. However, he recently admitted to the Post that he never graduated from Baruch College, or any college for that matter. Santos later apologized for this embellishment, however the implications of this lie are very serious. Level of education has a direct effect on voters' decisions. This is shown in the study by CBS, “candidates with a university degree are generally perceived to be more qualified than candidates without a degree.” By lying about his education level, Santos was able to establish fake qualifications that may have earned him more votes. 

His third lie was about his heritage. Santos stated that his grandparents fled Ukraine and Belgium to avoid the Holocaust, implying that he had Jewish heritage. However it was later reported by The Forward that both of Santos' grandparents were born in Brazil and were practicing Catholics. Jewish members take up about 20% of Santos congressional district and his lies could have swayed them to vote for him. After his genealogy report was released, exhibiting that he in fact did not have a Jewish heritage, Jewish members of his congressional district were outraged by his fabrication. They have since spoken out about his behavior, showing frustration that Santos used the Holocaust for political gain.

All of these lies could have tilted the scales in Santos favor for the congressional election. And now that he is elected, the next question is: should he be removed for his lies? In my opinion, Santos needs to be removed to maintain the legitimacy of all future elections. George Santos embellishments risk the future of all election campaigns, as completely fabricating your resume would become more socially accepted. He needs to be removed and there needs to be an extra check in place so that this cannot happen in the future. 

It has become clear that Santos has no intention of stepping down. Ever since his lies have been uncovered, Santos states that he will not remove himself from office. As reported by Forbes. “He said…he will not resign unless the ‘142,000’ voters who elected him call on him to do so.” Despite this claim, Santos has a moral obligation to step down from his position. The 142,000 voters did not vote for him, they voted for the candidate that Santos concocted during his campaign. Because of this, other action is necessary to get Santos expelled from Congress. 

Unfortunately, legally there is little that can be done by Santos’ constituents to expel him from office. The only way to remove him would be to not reelect him in the next congressional election of 2024. However this means that Santos still gets to serve his entire term.

 Although the members of Santos’ district don’t have the legal ability to remove him, not all hope is lost. Congress also has the ability to take action in this situation. There are two options for them to explore. The first possibility is to expel Santos from Congress. This ability is stated in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution; it declares that a member of congress can be expelled because of disorderly conduct by ⅔ majority vote within that house. This is the best option to get Santos removed from his position of power, however, Republicans are unlikely to join this movement as it would cause them to lose power in the House.

Another option would be to report Santos to the House Ethics Committee. This is a bipartisan committee that researches violations by Congress members. This process, however, is slow and not legally binding. An Ethics Committee recommendation would not force Santos to resign, but it would put pressure on other House members to explore his expulsion in earnest. Historically, members of Congress that have been recommended for expulsion by the Ethics Committee have resigned in the past. Therefore, if Santos were recommended for expulsion, there is a higher chance he would resign to avoid being formally expelled. 

These two options have been partially explored by House members, however there needs to be more urgency for this situation. Current House members have an ethical obligation to traverse all options for expulsion. Not only for the public, but for their own reputations as Congressmen. Currently, Republicans lawmakers have conflicting opinions. A few GOP lawmakers have called for Santos' resignation, such as Mike Lawler and Marc Molinaro, while others such as Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik have backed Santos on his decision to stay in power.

Santos’ removal is not the only necessary action. In the future, there needs to be a fail-safe that ensures this cannot not happen again. If change does not occur, what is stopping other candidates from fully fabricating their campaign? In order to keep all future elections honest, there needs to be a strong response to this conflict, such as the proposed “SANTOS” Act introduced by Republicans Ritchie Torres and Dan Goldman. This act would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require candidates to disclose all information regarding their employment and educational history. Additionally, the candidate would be fined up to $100,000 and/or sentenced to one year in prison if they fabricated campaign information.

This series of events will change all elections for the foreseeable future. The bottomline is that constituents need to know who they are voting for. Full disclosure on education, income, and history is important because of the large effect background has on voting patterns. If this situation is not handled properly, there is nothing stopping other candidates from using the same manipulation to gain positions of power.