LEGALLY, WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR GEORGE SANTOS?

by TONY YU STAFF WRITER

GeorgeSantos’ political career seems all but over. Facing investigations from the Department of Justice, Federal Election Commission, House Ethics Committee, and Brazilian prosecutors, as well as calls to resign from House Republican colleagues and district constituents, it would be an understatement to say that Santos is deep in political purgatory.

The freshman lawmaker’s troubles began in September 2022, when a local newspaper, The North Shore Leader, began questioning Santos’ finances, noting that his assets grew from virtually zero in 2020 to $11 million in 2022. In December, after an exposé published by The New York Times, this story began to gain traction, and more and more of Santos’ lies began to surface. He claimed he was a star volleyball player for Baruch College and attended NYU for an MBA, but neither school has records of him; he said his grandparents were Jewish immigrants fleeing the Holocaust, but they were actually born in Brazil; his career experience supposedly includes Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, but neither bank has every employed such a person. While the company he did actually work for, Harbor City Capital, is currently under SEC investigation for allegedly running a Ponzi scheme.

Although Santos’ list of blatant lies goes on, it seems that the political consequences outweigh the legal. A two-thirds supermajority in the House could expel Santos, but this course of action is extremely improbable since it will trigger a special election and likely further narrow the razor-thin GOP majority. Santos could receive a reprimand/ censure, which is a “formal resolution” by the House that amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist. Nevertheless, these scandals have made many politicians on both sides of the aisle distance themselves from Santos. It seems unlikely that he would be able to win his district’s primaries again, let alone re-election. Santos’ legal troubles primarily come from concerns regarding his campaign finances. A non-partisan campaign watchdog, the Campaign spending campaign funds on rent

Legal Center, filed a complaint before the FEC for three alleged regulation violations by Santos and his campaign committee: a straw donor scheme, disclosure violations, and misappropriation of campaign funds for personal use.

52 U.S.C. § 30114 prohibits using campaign funds on “expenses that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign”, and explicitly lists a home rent as such an expense. Nevertheless, Santos’ campaign spent $13,500 on rent for staff during the 2022 election cycle, in clear violation of this provision. $199.99 charges straw donor scheme

52 U.S.C. § 30104 requires cam paigns to retain receipts of spendings over $200. During the 2022 election cycle, Santos’ campaign logged 37 charges of exactly $199.99. For comparison, all campaigns in the US during that cycle logged a total of 75 such charges. Not only is it statistically improbable for Santos alone to account for almost half of all $199.99 charges, it is impossible for some of the expenditures to amount to $199.99. For example, one such charge was reported for a parking fee at JFK, which should be charged in whole dollar increments; the campaign also claimed to have spent $199.99 on a CLEAR membership, a pre-clearance service, which actually costs $189. It seems that the campaign is deliberately attempting to conceal where the funds were spent, constituting a disclosure violation.

52 U.S.C. § 30122 states that “[n] o person shall make a contribution in the name of another person.” A straw donor, who makes contribu-