Better vetting needed for elected officials

People applying for licenses to run casinos in downstate New York must disclose a wealth of personal information, including place of birth, employment and marriage history, debt and child support obligations, and previous addresses. Those who want government jobs are accustomed to background checks and lots of paperwork. Even private employment typically comes with a request for references.

So why should voters have less information about the elected officials we’re asked to consider?

The alarming case of George Santos, who won the seat in the 3rd Congressional District, makes clear that insincere actors have no problem faking their way to federal office, and that the current safeguards in place aren’t sufficient. It has become clear that Santos lied about past jobs, his education, his charity endeavors, even his home address. He is facing probes by prosecutors from the federal to local levels, and his campaign finance filings are ripe for investigation. Yet none of that was widely known before his election, when it would have mattered most.

One smart, if ridiculously titled, proposal is the “Stopping Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker Act” from two New York City members of the House, Ritchie Torres and Dan Goldman.

The act — which spells out SANTOS — would require congressional candidates to disclose information about their educational background, military service, and employment history. Santos' defense — that everybody embellishes their resume — is rubbish. Voters deserve accuracy. 

The Constitution lays out very simple requirements to serve in the House: You must be a citizen for seven years, be at least 25 years old, and be a resident of the state in which you’re seeking office when elected. Those can't be changed without amending the Constitution, a laborious process. The SANTOS Act would add more disclosure obligations for candidates. False information is punishable by a $100,000 fine, a year in prison, or both.

Perhaps this would act as a deterrent against willful lying and serve as a collateral enforcement tool to penalize untruths. Other existing disclosure requirements for candidates come with similar penalties. It’s clear that voters need more insight into politicians’ backgrounds.

Congress should also consider requiring sworn disclosures of birth certificates — after all, citizenship is a constitutional requirement — and disclosure of federal IRS returns, with similar monetary or criminal penalties, to ensure that elected officials don't act in their own financial interests when doing the nation's business.

Refusal to file information, or lying about crucial aspects of one’s background, can also be fodder for House Ethics Committee investigations, and that body can recommend that the full House expel a member — a rare but, in this case, warranted action.

Stronger vetting requirements for office are needed in an era when too many politicians are elastic with even the most basic truths.