>

Has to be done in order to prevent another Rep Santos from Holding office
Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.
His campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.
All this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want. >

Fines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do. >

Income Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws. >

This would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is. >

Mate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story. >

Yeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable. >

That's just a fixed fine using a fixed percentage instead of a fixed number.
The correct way would be to have a non-linear scaling of the percentage, so that higher earners pay more. If 5% to someone having $100 million isn't a deterrent, you make it a higher percentage.
It's literally the same way taxes are applied, except in both cases, for some reason, people don't want to tax the 0.1% ($3,212,486 and up, in 2020) at a much higher rate. There's no reason you can't fine someone making $5,000 only 5% but someone making $100 million 90%. >

Speeding tickets in much of Scandinavia are tied to a percentage of income.  Tickets have been known to exceed $100,000. >

I just made a comment about this, specifically citing Finland. >

I honestly don't understand how this guy hasn't been charged with fraud yet. >

He will be soon. In Brazil. >

For completely unrelated crimes. >

Sure, but I only care about the end result. How we get from point A to point B doesn't really matter other than the embarrassment that America is so corrupt that it has to rely on another country to take out its trash. >

Especially when that country is Brazil. Let’s be real, we all knew American exceptionalism was a lie, we just didn’t know it would be proven so conclusively over the last 5-7 years. >

America is exceptional, in lots of ways. Some of them are even positive. >

The fact that McCarthy supports him because of his one vote shows what a rotting piece of flesh McCarthy has become. >

Great, next include actual standards that candidates meet before running for office.  Like passing the citizenship test immigrants take or the civil service exam.  At least then we know they can read, write and name the 3 branches of government.  
Since I learned that those elected have access to classified documents without the incumbent background checks everyone else is required to pass...how about making that a requirement too before being seated.
If not then why the hell not.  
Standards set for them should be no different than standards others must meet before being hired or starting a practice like for physicians, attorneys, pilots, truck drivers, postal workers, teachers, engineers, etc. 
Standards set for incoming politicians before running for office and extended before they are seated should't be a pearl-clutching idea.
Are we an advanced society or are we glued to the year 1776? >

Been saying this, almost verbatim, for decades...makes no sense that we don't have updated criteria and standards for assuming public office. >

The challenge is making a fair test, if implemented. A lot of exams, though they serve a purpose, end up becoming a resources game, where the well connected, privileged, and rich dominate the scene. There are numerous candidates in office who came from less fortunate backgrounds, didn't have English as their first language, or grew up in debt, yet were or are effective officials for those who elected them.
It is a difficult balance because historically we have created threshold tests before, and they were exploited to supress the lower classes or minorities. >

I don't disagree with that, but even before getting to implement tests, we should have BASIC criteria to meet, that is higher than the current requirements, before you can assume office. And I mean BASIC
You want to be President? Great! But being 35, a natural-born citizen, and a non-felon... IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH to run the most powerful country in the world.
You want to be a Congressperson? Awesome! If you lie about you background, your YOUR CANDIDACY SHOULD INVALIDATED (as in, you are taken OFF the ballot, not asked to resign after being elected). You lie on your resume or application anywhere else, you face consequences.
Higher standards and criteria. That's what I'm talking about. Test or no test >

The fact that the last president couldn't get a security clearance but did get nuke codes is fucking insane >

I love that it’s named after him. That can be his legacy. >

Like Santorum. >


santorum (n)
the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex

Lol >

Impeachment is the tool that already exists for the purpose of handling this, but these cowards are infesting our elected offices. >

The house could just vote to expel him. And it should, but the GOP would never vote for it because it would set the precedent that you will be punished for egregious bad behavior. >

Under this can we punish someone claiming they have normal sized hands when they don't? >

Depends on how well they know bird law >

Oh my God! Nobody look!! >

Did you see his hands? They’re beautiful. I think we should settle. >

The fact I can't tell an Uncle Jack quote from a former president quote, is sad... >

Lol the Representative Lemon Law! Take him back to the dealership and get our money back for this clunker >

I don’t even think Santos is his real name, so this is an ironically good name for the act >

I think of Santos L. Helper every time I see it >

Santos L. Halper >

It's brilliant... make them defend his lies. >!The GOP will defend his lies to the end!< >

Santos actually wrote the SANTOS Act. What a guy >

Crazy that the party that impeached a President for lying about get a blowie in the oval office will let this slide. >

A background check should also be required. >

Can they pass an act to punish  candidates who lie about what they "stand for" and what they "promise" to the electorate? Pretty sure there's  a few Charlie Brown's getting tired of Lucy's  football shit. >

Nope. And here's why.
The entire concept of how this system was put together was that the electorate would hold the elected accountable. You run on a pro education platform and immediately turn around and cut education funding, well the people in your district can demand a recall vote on the grounds of dishonesty, everyone votes and just like that you get kicked to the curb.
The problem is that the electorate are the ones who are supposed to wield that power. The kinds of people that vote for Santos and his ilk don't see this as a violation of trust, they delight in how one of their own lied his way into office and now all the "libs" are up in arms about it. These people operate on a mindset where our outrage is the point.
As far as Santos's voters are concerned, they got exactly what they voted for. >

Is this like a Lemon Law for Congress? >

Right above where you sign your name on a job application it says you will be immediately terminated if it’s discovered you lied on that application! Good grief! This is SHAMEFUL! Boot him out on his ass! >

My last name is santos I don’t want my name tarnished like this, there’s thousands of us! >

same >

IT TOOK THIS FUCKING LONG?!?!?
Why is it that if I smoke weed I can't be a fucking mailman yet the people that are in charge of actual policy get to lie about every little thing and STILL KEEP THEIR JOB...? WTF >

Why not punish politicians for lying about anything? >


Under their bill, a candidate for Congress who knowingly provides false information about their background would be punished with a $100,000 fine or one year in prison. Or both.

How about "and they are automatically ejected from the political race and their name is removed from the ballot. If they are elected anyway, they may not be sworn in." >

How long does it take the interns and staffers to come up with all these acronyms? >

Long enough... >

What a legacy! >

I’m gonna apply to fly airplanes, since resumes don’t matter anymore….whooo! >

"Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker" >

Jesus that’s so embarrassing >

If McCarthy just said, “look, I don’t like it but we can’t afford not to seat him”, that would be somewhat respectable. But invoking a principle like innocent until proven guilty in a moment like this demonstrates an ignorance and opportunism that tells me we might as well have put a middle school bully in charge of the House. >

That's exactly why Republicans deserve this guy.  
Their majority margin was too thin, they were happy to get his vote... even though all this cable out like a month ago. They could have objected to him being sworn in.. but they didn't do that. It's hilarious that they're stuck with him. 
After four years of TFG being dysfunctional in office the Republicans STILL haven't improved their recruiting for offices.  They deserve exactly that they're getting. >

"You know, I'm feeling really called out here guys." >

Does he get to vote on it?! >

But how sure are we that is in fact his name? >

You know if I thought republicans were clever enough I would suggest they put Santos forward in purpose to pass a bill that if you’re caught lying you get ousted so they can use it against democrats if they make a mistake. >

I’m surprised the US doesn’t have any mechanism to prevent candidates from completely misleading their voters. >

Supposedly the press and the election cycle perform those functions but they've been corrupted. >

This should be embarrassing for George Santos, but he is shameless. >

Only a couple hundred years late. Some "leadership" we've had in this country. >

I hate to sound like Trump but is he an American citizen? I mean everything about him is a lie. Are we sure he’s eligible at all to be in Congress. Seriously asking. >

Only a problem because he lied to rich donors. Where's the law punishing politicians for lying to their constituents?? >

Fines and tickets are only there to keep the poors in line.   The rich elite can just keep doing whatever the fuck they want.  $100,000 fine isn't even a slap on the writs. It's a finger wag at best. 
Fuck this. Fines should be % based. >

McCarthy should now be personally accountable for Santos’ actions >

He is. Same goes for Boebert, Greene, Gaetz... and honestly, I'm stopping at 3, because there are well over a dozen other plague rats that he's regularly turned his eyes away from in the better half of a decade. >

I can hear George Santos or any other culprit responding with, "Hey, I was just campaigning. Any reasonable person should have known I was not telling the whole truth". >

Congratulations George... you're an internet meme now, just ask Rick Santorum (eww). >

To be honest, I'm actually impressed (and scared( that this dude can show his face in public.
Super irksome that he's displaying no shame. >

Is that actually his face?
Is there any evidence that it’s not a rubber mask bought from a joke shop? >

We now know who this guy is not and what he has not achieved.   Curious what he HAS done in his life and who he really is. >

Perhaps he’s a Russian spy, who’s just a bit crap at fabricating a convincing backstory.
Disclaimer: Not American, but I would never trust a man who looks like he’d feed his (probably fictitious) friends to zombie cannibals. >

Joke's on them, Santos isn't even his real name! >

It's Soros!!  
Secret Democrats plot!!! >

My read of the bill is that it wouldn't have stopped him. He could have submitted his actual education and work history while still lying in interviews, ads...and been compliant with the law. While I think he's a bit scummy I wonder how far down the slippery slope legislators are going to go on this. Will they finally ban dark money? Will they require the FCC to finally regulate political ads and opinion based news shows? Will they hold politicians accountable for lies and half truths? >

The punishment should be removal from office, all campaign funds seized and jail time for defrauding the public. >

Good so start with punishing Santos first. >

Better late than never >

Should be removal from office and jail time.  Minimum. >

I’m Lmao because I know this is hardly the legacy Santos wanted to create. He must be fuming! But yeah, this is what he gets cemented in his name, and I’d be glad this act was created no matter what they called it. >

So close... now make it apply to campaign promises. Go on, binding honesty insurance. 
Or allowing OPM's 'suitability standards' to apply to elected and appointed roles. 
Time is now. >

Jesus the Trump act would be a better name. >

Don't flatter him. >

Candidates that lie!? That would Trump a lot of issues! >

All that "accountability" talk only applies to non-GOP members. This will go no where. >

This bill would have to be incredibly descriptive if it has a hope of passing. I mean, if it's a broad and ambiguous bill, no one will vote for it because every politician lies to one degree or another and they know it. >

Man it is a real skill to come up with a snarky acronym that works for this. Kudos to whichever staffer came up with that! >

Iirc a noted Republican once called himself a “very stable genius” >

Imagine having bill in congress solely related to you and your name, yet its to disqualify everything you did to get to congress LMAO. >

The Dick Whitman Act >

So they can pay to lie? Got it. >

I don’t even know who this guy really is. >

How badly are candidates gonna sidestep this? "If so and so can identify as a woman, why can I identify as a navy seal, or the grandchild of a holocaust survivor" . There had better be crystal clear rules in place for this one. >

Is he even a US citizen? Let's check that cert! >

There goes our chance to lie about being the next MTG, getting in, then voting for affordable healthcare and housing. >

I was going to make a joke about Santos twisting this to be a positive thing. Like, it’s better to be infamous than anonymous, or something. But then I remembered that he doesn’t twist the truth. He just makes up shit that is easily refuted.
So, the fact that he’s not retaliated yet lets me know that he truly earned that Nobel Peace Prize. >

How about instead of punishing them with fines, you disqualify them from running and add in personal income fraud along with it. >

How was this not a thing decades ago... Maybe people thought common sense would always prevail. >

Because criminals have always been in our legislative branch or in cabinet positions. 
Long list >

So why are the gop actually pissed at him? >

He's making them look like fools.  He's making THEIR JOBS harder. He's not capable of doing the basic job of being a Representative and running an office for constituents... so now other Republicans have to do his work for him.  You'd have thought they learned this lesson with "orgies" Crawford who completely checked out after being proven a fool.   But they just keep on signing them up. >

Why not jail? >

This won’t hold up in the courts. The Stolen Valor act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban on lying violated the First Amendedment. >

Lol putting the Brasil in “jeitinho brasileiro” >

Yes! The oh my mom died in 911. How sick. >

Fines are for poor people.  So funny people think monetary compensation makes a difference in autocracy.
. >

Look, this is clearly fraudulent behavior, basically a fraud against the American people.  The punishment should be immediate removal from office and barred from being able to hold any political offices in the future.  It's simple. >

I can’t lie on applications why the fuck Can this shit head lie and be a politician ON THE FUCKING APPLICATION >

How about lying in prepared statements about anything by politicians should be a crime. >

He makes the exact same facial expression as Kyrsten Sinema in like every photo he's in. >

So they’re just gonna make a $100k entry fee into congress? >

Amazing. He’ll probably take that as an honor. >

They just factor fines into their budgets. >

How is this not immediately disqualifying and exposes him to prosecution?
It’s should be treated as fraud against the government. Elections are a serious deal! Democracy is a serious deal!
Why are all these fucking clowns allowed to thrive and fuck everyone over!?
I’d be so pissed if I was an American…I don’t get it! >

I 100% thought this was gonna be the onion. >

I would put the odds that he committed covid fraud via ppp loans at higher than 50%.
That entire system invited predators and people who don’t give a fuck about anyone but themselves.