The Oversight of Candidacy

Digital Digest

Author: FiNC Team

Post Preview

The Old Ways Must Die: Background Checks for Elected Officials A 21st Century Standard

$\"\"$

The 118th Congress began with a chaotic vote for Speaker, the GOP devolving into brawls and yelling matches on the House floor over Kevin McCarthy. This vote was further underscored by another scandal highlighting a long problem in American Congressional Politics. George Santos, if that is his legal name, was outed days before the opening of the 118th Congress for lying to voters about his personal, education, and work history during the campaign. Further complicating this, those with the power to remove Santos before he was sworn in or reprimand him are the same people with a very slim majority in the House and need his vote to maintain their hold in Congress.

For this case, it is important to look at a conflation of factors within this Congress that put Santos in the position to lie his way into office and face no consequences. More important, though, is to examine how Santos is not a unique case – he just got caught in multiple lies and was caught too late to prevent him from being sworn into congress. Many have claimed his lies, criminal charges, and possible corrupt dealings should disqualify Santos from taking office. However, the reality is there is no mechanism in the law to compel an elected candidate to leave office for any violation – ethical, personal, financial, or otherwise. While the House could compel him to testify under oath and then use perjury as grounds for impeachment or expulsion, with the slim margin in the House this course of action is unlikely, especially as the Speaker of the House would be the one to call for an inquiry. With the current climate in the house, Kevin McCarthy has a weak hold on the Speakership and is unlikely to oust one of the members who will vote with him. The Nassau County New York State GOP has called for Representative Santos to resign, but he has so far refused to do so, and with a slim majority in the House, it is unlikely Kevin McCarthy will require him to do so. This request also falls a bit flat from the party that nominated Santos, as it was on their watch that he won the election.

How did we get here? Average Americans assume that there are some checks for potential candidates, that the appropriate bodies will have cleared anyone they elect for service in Congress. It makes logical sense that for the highest offices in the country, officials who deal with classified and sensitive information and those who make laws have undergone some degree of scrutiny before being allowed such access. As an observer, one is mystified that people can still hold this belief after the Trump presidency, rife with criminal allegations and charges as it was. However, both Trump and Santos highlight an anachronistic piece of our election processes: in the 21st Century, with the internet so easily accessible and thousands of background check services, how does neither party have a mechanism in place to prevent morally, financially, or personally compromised candidates from getting on the ballot?

Speaking historically, such an oversight is likely a result from the standards for elected officials being set before the proliferation of information that comes from robust media reporting and modern technology. The qualifications for Congressional Elected Candidates, Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates, and other elected or appointed officials within the Federal Government are laid out in Article 2 of the Constitution, and there are three requirements for members of the House of Representatives:

Average Americans assume that there are some checks for potential candidates, that the appropriate bodies will have cleared anyone they elect for service in Congress. It makes logical sense that for the highest offices in the country, officials who deal with classified and sensitive information and those who make laws have undergone some degree of scrutiny before being allowed such access. As an observer, one is mystified that people can still hold this belief after the Trump presidency, rife with criminal allegations and charges as it was. However, both Trump and Santos highlight an anachronistic piece of our election processes: in the 21st Century, with the internet so easily accessible and thousands of background check services, how does neither party have a mechanism in place to prevent morally, financially, or personally compromised candidates from getting on the ballot?

How Did We Get Here?

1

25 years old live in the state they campaign in Citizen for 7 years
2

live in the state they campaign in
3

Citizen for 7 years

And these requirements have been the same since the ratification of the Constitution in 1787, with the bulk of scrutiny on elected candidates placed on the political parties, the media, and the voters. The long assumption has been that if a member is duly elected to congress, he or she must be inherently trustworthy and deserving of the office and security clearances. Such an assumption probably worked fine in 1800 when the media was less structured and journalism less focused on holding politicians accountable in the early days of our country.

As we enter the year 2023, the assumption of the American people that their elected officials can be trusted is waning dramatically, and with elected candidates like Santos, that trust is further eroded into nonexistence. Both parties are clearly at fault when a candidate who is flawed, trailed by controversy and scandal, or not representative of their community makes it into congress – after all, the New York Democratic Party didn’t out Santos during the campaign. The mainstream media, including outlets that fight for conservative causes like Fox, OAN, or NewsMax did not cover Santos’ egregious lies, just as they didn’t cover Trump’s long history of racism and shady financial dealings. Democratic mechanisms are as much at fault for charlatans in our government as the same mechanisms of the GOP, and the mainstream media is too concerned with getting their money from the respective parties to do hard investigative journalism into potentially problematic candidates. Obviously, such a system is inherently flawed and furthers the toxic relationship between elected officials, their parties, and the mainstream media that blinds the American public to the actions of their elected officials.

Santos is not the first person elected under false pretense, and unless a non-partisan mechanism is put in place to prevent liars, thieves, and frauds from getting into our government, more of his ilk are likely to find their way into elected positions legally. Aided and abetted by the mainstream media, democracy will continue to descend into fascism with corporate interests and lobbying money to pave the way.

It is worth noting local journalists in Nassau County for the North Shore Leader investigated Santos and reported on his campaign finances, history of lying, and the truth behind his claims in August 2022, but the story failed to get picked up by national media and received inadequate exposure. Alongside highlighting the vital nature of local journalism to our democracy, this failure highlights the corrupt relationships that define mainstream media and politicians who put monied interests ahead of their constituents.

The scandals of Santos are not unique to American elections, politicians are largely assumed to lie about certain things to improve their changes. The election of Santos is not unique; even his lack of coverage can be explained by more competitive and high-stakes races in New York during the same election cycle. None of this situation is unique for America, but as a new generation comes into power, there must be systemic changes that reflect the expectations of voters and hold politicians accountable for their misdeeds, big and small.

Accountability

The Future is Now Coalition is committed to holding all publicly elected officials accountable to their voters, visit our website to learn how you can support our mission and make sure politicians are worthy of your vote!

Works Cited: “Constitution of the United States”, article 1, section 2, clause 2