There is a silver lining in every cloud, we are told and it may turn out to be a blessing that George Santos got elected in the first place. Seriously. Santos’ fellow first-term New York Rep. Anthony D’Esposito is circulating a proposed bill among his GOP colleagues, which, if made into law, would prevent members convicted of certain offenses from then profiting off book deals, speech commissions, television shows and more. Politico:
While D’Esposito’s measure doesn’t name Santos directly, a Republican with direct knowledge of the move says it was triggered by the scandal-plagued New Yorker. Nearly the entirety of Santos’ background has been called into question after a deluge of news stories detailed the lies, contradictions and misleading comments he repeatedly made about his resume, ancestry and education.
The idea that once Santos leaves office, he could profit off of his story with a book or movie contract has privately percolated among — and annoyed — House Republicans.
The bill would “prohibit Members of the House of Representatives who are convicted of offenses involving financial or campaign finance fraud from receiving compensation for biographies, media appearances, or expressive or creative works, and for other purposes,” according to the text.
Now stop, look and listen, because this is what this bill could mean: Santos might not be able to get a job as a talking head on Newsmax, which is quite probably the only gig he could qualify for after he gets replaced in Congress in 2024, and that’s how the smart money is betting. The day Santos’ constituents showed up protesting in the halls of Congress and serving petitions on Kevin McCarthy to have Santos removed from the House, pretty much spelled out that future.
And there’s another silver lining to this. It’s not just about stopping Santos. This would act as a deterrent to other grifters as well.
I am very encouraged by this. Congress cleaning its own House is exactly what we need to see. It’s also intriguing that this is getting bipartisan support.
The move underscores the acutely bad blood among New York Republicans, some of whom have also called for expelling Santos from Congress. But it’s unclear how many other GOP members would sign on to the effort, as many have expressed anger at Santos’ actions but indicated they plan to keep their distance.
The Republican party can’t continue to keep putting bizarro world candidates in office and expect to be a viable political party. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz and Paul Gosar are supposedly bulletproof because they’re from deep red districts, but their antics don’t make the party as a whole look good.
It will be interesting to see what happens in 2024. It could be a GOP bloodbath, but it’s way too early to speculate.
Can it somehow also apply to (twice-impeached) former presidents and their families?
It turns my stomach to think of Santos making some money writing a book or selling movie rights. It reminds me of a movie that despite it having Tom Hanks in a huge role (the agent chasing the con man played by DiCapprio) called Catch Me If You Can. I have NEVER seen it and will NEVER do so even in on free TV. I saw ads and previews and some write-ups about it and was infuriated it had been made. Even more infuriated that it did fine at the box office. And pissed at Hanks (never been a fan of Leo) for having anything to do with the project.
That lying, grifting sonavabitch glorified in the movie ruined lives and even risked them at times. If there was justice the motherfucker would have been locked up for the rest of his life. But, long after the events portrayed were history I guess he decided to do a variation on the long con and pitched the whole story. And got a movie deal AND made a shitload of money off it – RE-victimizing people and flaunting the law!
So yes, I love the concept of keep Santos from being able to get a book or movie deal although I’m not so sure he could get one. However, there could be a problem with this legislation as it ventures into Bill of Attainder territory which is proscribed by our Constitution. (For more on this: (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-3/bills-of-attainder ) Even though Santos isn’t named specifically SCOTUS precedent holds that isn’t necessary, nor limited to Capital Crimes as many think. He’s clearly part of what the law would describe as an “easily identifiable class/group” and we have the sponsor admitting on the record Santos is the reason this Bill got dropped in the Hopper. So again I love the sentiment but this would run into trouble (I think). I believe the best chance for Santos not to profit from this is publishers and studios NOT buying the rights to his story from him. There is already PLENTY of public record to go on and more to come including in the courts. And there will be “unauthorized” biographies that will tell every sleazy detail about the guy. In other words, for once I think the conservative mantra of let the market take care of it will actually work for everyone’s benefit – except of course Santos.
My thought, too, that this potential bill may well be determined to be illegal in itself.
What about the other two that got voted into Congress? No one has talked about them.
While emotionally-satisfying, I don’t see how this bill would pass muster under the 1st Amendment.