What's new
The Brexit And Political discussion Forum

Brexit may have begun but it is not over, indeed it may never be finished.

Bizarre personal life aside, there's a lot of hinky money behind George Santos

Brexiter

Active member
Now that The New York Times has decided to pay attention to the many bizarre stories of fabulist Rep.-elect George Santos, they’re really digging in. It would have been helpful if they’d been paying attention before the election, while local New York papers like the North Shore Leader were raising the alarm about Santos’ finances. That paper concluded he was too “bizarre, unprincipled and sketchy” to hold office. But those concerns didn’t rise far enough for the other local paper, the Times, to take note in time to help stop his election.

Now that he has been elected, and the many, many discrepancies in his financial history have emerged, Santos is under investigation by county, state, and federal prosecutors. Everyone wants to know how he went from earning $55,000—his income report from his first run for congress in 2020—to between $1 and $5 million as he reported in 2022 campaign filings. And where did the $700,000 he loaned his campaign come from.

That’s got the Times delving into the story, with the latest report focusing on his campaign finances, or what he claimed on them, anyway. That includes nearly $11,000 to a company called Cleaner 123 for “apartment rental for staff.” Except that according to neighbors of the “modest suburban house on Long Island,” Santos had been living there for months, along with his husband.

If Santos was paying for his own housing out of campaign finances, that would be a violation of federal rules—campaign money can’t be spent on day-to-day living expenses such as rent and utilities for candidates. Paying staff rent may or may not be a violation, but it’s unusual, campaign finance experts told the Times. The Times telephoned Cleaner 123, where a representative “confirmed that it was a cleaning company, but hung up before answering why it had received rent payments from Mr. Santos.”

RELATED: George Santos admits to some major lies, but a $700,000 mystery remains

Santos has claimed that he lives with his sister in Huntington, NY, on Long Island after reporters were unable to reach him at the Whitestone, Queens address that he used for his voter registration. His sister, however, lives in Elmhurtst, Queens according to “court documents, as well as interviews with neighbors and a doorman.”

What’s also eye-catching on his campaign disclosures are the “more than 30” expenses claimed for office supplies, meals, transportation, etc. that were exactly $199.99, one cent below the threshold requiring receipts to be filed with reports. That, Paul S. Ryan, an election law expert, told the Times would be exactly how a campaign looking to hide the illegal use of campaign funds would do it.

“I consider deployment of this tactic strong evidence that the violation of law was knowing and willful—and therefore meeting the requirement for criminal prosecution,” Ryan said.

Santos also spent huge amounts on travel expense—$30,000 for hotels, $40,000 for airfare, and $14,000 on car services—for a candidate running in an urban district measuring 254.8 square miles. “By way of comparison, Nick LaLota, the Republican representative-elect from the First Congressional District, in Long Island’s Suffolk County, spent roughly $900 on hotel stays, $3,000 on airfare and $900 on taxi services, according to his campaign filings, the Times reports. “Sean Patrick Maloney, the outgoing head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who lost to a Republican in the Hudson Valley, spent just $8,000 on air travel, according to his filings.”

The expenditures are one thing. The money he used to pay for them—including that mysterious $700,000 that he loaned himself—is quite another. And that’s what’s landed Santos federal prosecutors’ attention. Sources to ABC News “were careful not to characterize this as a formal investigation and stressed that prosecutors, at this stage, are only looking at publicly available filings.”

They’ll find much to interest them there, including that loan, which could have been illegal if he took the money from his company, the Devolder Organization, to fund his campaign. Santos told the Daily Beast this week that “he withdrew money from the firm to underwrite his campaign.” He said the same thing on WABC radio on Monday, that it “was the money I paid myself through the Devolder Organization.”

“You can fund a campaign with your own money to whatever extent you’d like, but the deal is it has to be your money,” Jordan Libowitz, communications director of government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, told the Daily Beast. “Two major problems here. One, if it’s the company’s money, it’s not his money. If it were Santos personally doing business as the company—that is, if it were his bank accounts—that’s okay. But this is an actual corporation, and you can’t make a corporation to run money through to your campaign.”

There’s also plenty of questions about where that $700,000 came from before it got to Devolder Organization. “If I wished to illegally fund a campaign and hide it, what I would do is run the money through a dummy corporation, then to a dark money group that supports the campaign. But if I was not that up on things, or a little lazy, I might … set up the dummy corporation, say it’s in the name of the candidate, then have the candidate pay himself the money and give it to the campaign,” Libowitz said. “This isn’t to say that this is clearly an illegal pass-through donation scheme, because we don’t know the full picture yet—but if it were one, this is what it would look like.”

There’s definitely enough to keep prosecutors and investigators busy here.

RELATED STORIES


Fabulist George Santos' manufactured history gets even more bizarre and scummy


Rep.-elect Santos is now lying about which lies he told, and the big questions aren't going away


George Santos just the beginning of Republicans' meager majority nightmare
 
Back
Top