We can, and likely will, see another George Santos if nothing changes

The saga of Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) is so strange it would be hard to believe if it was a movie or TV show. With actions more cartoon than congressman, Santos’ litany of blatant lies goes well beyond his claim of “resume embellishment” to the point of absurdity.

At this point, the list of falsehoods that Santos has told is well known. From lying about his professional and educational background to claiming Jewish heritage and employing people killed in the Pulse nightclub shooting, he has proven so slippery it’s hard to believe anything he has shared with the world.

The big question is, how could someone get to such an elevated position without his lies being exposed? The answer resides in a unique combination of social and economic factors particular to this moment in history and is evident beyond the political scene.

Part of the reason that Santos was successful in his subterfuge is because of the erosion of newspapers in the United States in recent years — specifically the decline of local newspapers.

As corporate investigators, we value the U.S. as one of the best countries in which to run a background check because — in addition to the robust and accessible criminal and civil records available to investigators — the U.S. has always had a strong independent media. Smaller publications have been particularly invaluable in exposing corruption on a local level and as important sources of knowledge about regional powerbrokers. A complex web of economic change brought on by the internet and exacerbated by predatory financiers has sadly destroyed much of that local knowledge by forcing many of these publications out of business.

Long Island’s North Shore Leader, a survivor of sorts in this depressing landscape, actually raised some important concerns about Santos. But because these newspapers have been marginalized, the Leader didn’t have the budget to dig in, as the New York Times did after Santos was elected. The Times, for its part, has a separate City section that might have caught up with Santos’ many fibs, but it has become, in many ways, a national paper with more limited local coverage.

Both political parties are certain to take some responsibility for the fiasco of Santos. The Republican party has been in such disarray that it nominated a range of fringe candidates in the last election cycle that many saw as unfit for public service. It’s not clear that the party would have pulled the plug on Santos’ candidacy even if his many fabrications were revealed.

The Democrats dropped the ball on opposition research on an individual who, in retrospect, should have been easy to figure out wasn’t who he purported to be. While the Democrats produced research that pointed to details that seemed to conflict with Santos’ self-described biography — evictions, questions about Santos’ animal charity — that research was more focused on his political positions than his many biographical inconsistencies.

This leads to the broader point that background investigations are not valued as much as they should be. We regularly see in corporate investigations a tendency to use background checks as a quick and final step, a check-the-box exercise, when it should be an integral step in any investment or new partnership. Merely confirming that a potential business partner doesn’t have a criminal record, for instance, should be the beginning, not the end, of a check into someone’s background. Confirming other elements about their broader biographical history — personal and professional — and collecting human intelligence to confirm a person is who they claim to be is not only smart risk management but good business. 

With Santos, even some limited human intelligence gathering would have revealed someone who failed to pay back loans and had a loose relationship with the truth, to say the least.

People tend to want to believe that people are good, especially if we have an interest in their success. We saw this with the collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, where an enigmatic founder may have led investors to put aside the diligence they typically exercise with other investment opportunities. We watched the FTX drama unfold after investigating other crypto players with similar red flags — domiciled in an odd foreign location, an association with a sketchy bank — knowing that more thorough diligence could have saved millions, if not billions, in investor capital. We see this regularly in basic merger and acquisition activity, where one company has spent time with the leadership of another and believes they have properly assessed their character.

The same is true in the political world. Those charmed by Santos now know that someone putting their best foot forward might also be harboring some unpleasant skeletons in their closet. Those he has swindled wanted to believe in his rags-to-riches story, his admirable pet charity, etc. Those same constituents certainly now wish more robust diligence had been done on this deceiver.

Both political parties would be well-served by a program to streamline elements of opposition research to give candidates and their teams a template to work from. These should include all the elements of public records research that are warranted — confirming educational backgrounds, civil and criminal checks, asset searches — and should be combined with investigators asking questions about a candidate and the various claims they’ve made about themselves and other aspects of their personal lives.

The tendency to believe the best in people and appreciate success stories of the self-made are positive aspects of Americans. People like Santos unfortunately make us more cynical and suspicious. This calcification of darker views of humanity could be avoided, as could huge losses by investors, with some quiet investigative work. This might go on in the background, but it is driven by the philosophy that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Don Aviv CPP, PSP, PCI, is president of Interfor International. Jeremy Hurewitz is a strategic advisor to Interfor International and creator of “Sell Like a Spy.“