George Santos was officially sworn in as the representative for the 3^rd Congressional District early Saturday morning after running a campaign in which he lied about his professional background, educational history, religion, race and property ownership. Among other things.

This raises two questions.

Who is to blame for a congressional candidate getting elected by deceiving the voters of his district? And how do we prevent this from happening again?

Let’s start with who is to blame, aside from Santos.

Santos, who before being elected to Congress had never served in public office, was selected by both the Queens and Nassau County Republican parties. Twice. Once in 2020 in an unsuccessful run against Rep. Tom Suozzi and again in 2022 in a slightly altered district against businessman Robert Zimmerman.

He was then supported by the New York State Republican Party and the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.

Did any of these groups vet Santos to see whether he was really qualified to represent the voters of northern Nassau County and and portions of northeast Queens in Congress?

Like the way a vice presidential candidate is vetted by a presidential candidate or a nominee to a cabinet position is vetted by a presidential administration and the U.S. Senate?

Apparently not.

Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman pointed his finger at the Queens County Republican Party last month.

“George Santos is not a Nassau Republican,” Blakeman told Newsday. “He’s a Queens Republican.” He then added that after the district lines changed from 2020 “we kind of inherited him.”

Aside from slighting the more than 2.4 million Queens residents, Blakeman’s claim is surprising since the 3rd District in 2022 was comprised overwhelmingly of Nassau residents, who cast 82% of the 279,772 votes in the race between Santos and Zimmerman.

There are another 185,000 reasons that the Nassau GOP may have endorsed Santos. That’s the amount of money Santos-tied political action committees gave to the Nassau County GOP for the 2022 campaign, according to a report in Newsday.

Nassau GOP Chairman Joseph Cairo said Thursday that the party would return money donated by one Santos tied-committee – the Rise NY – totaling $126,725.

Cairo did join other Nassau County Republicans in calling for Santos to resign from Congress on Wednesday.

Unsaid is why Nassau Republicans did not bother to question how Santos raised the money to contribute to Nassau Republicans.

Or how his personal income rose from $55,000 in 2020 to $750,000 in salary with between $1 million to $5 million in dividends in 2022.

Santos reported to the Federal Election Commission that he loaned his campaign $705,000. A federal complaint was filed Monday urging the FEC to immediately open an investigation into questions about Santos’ fund-raising, loans and expenditures.

Cairo said the standard used by the Nassau GOP in taking the $126, 000 was that “it was permissible under the law, and it would allow a Republican to have a better chance to win in a challenging congressional district.”

This seems to be a very low standard for a candidate who on Saturday helped elect the speaker of the House, the person second in line to the president of the United States.

What about Zimmerman, Nassau and New York State Democrats, particularly Jay Jacobs who is chairman of both parties, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee?

Shouldn’t they have done the opposition research usually conducted in campaigns for Congress where negative information about the opposition is ferreted out and used to attack an opponent?

The answer is of course.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee did do opposition research that reviewed Santos’ politics.

This included details that Santos attended the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6, claimed that he financially supported insurrectionists, called Ukraine a “totalitarian regime,” favored criminal charges for doctors who performed abortions and supported tax cuts for the wealthy.

The research also found personal and financial issues such as questions about an animal rescue nonprofit Santos claimed to have started and that he faced several evictions from apartments he rented.

But the DCCC and the Zimmerman campaign missed many other lies that were later reported by The New York Times after the election and, in many cases, confirmed by Santos.

Democrats, in part, blamed the lies missed on the abbreviated general election campaign that resulted from a lawsuit that found congressional maps drawn by the state Legislature violated state law.

Zimmerman said the extended primary campaign cost him money to be used in a general campaign on further opposition research and required him to spend more time raising funds.

But the Democrats’ efforts fell well short of what one would expect in an election that helped determine control of the U.S. House. And the campaign failed to adequately communicate what they found to voters.

Zimmerman also faulted the media for not fulfilling its watchdog role before the election.

He said he tried to present the results of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee research, which was later used by The New York Times, to many members of the news media.

But, he said, there was little interest in the information in part because members of the media didn’t think Santos had a chance to win the election.

We don’t know about the other media companies, but Blank Slate Media did not receive the report until after The New York Times story broke.

Would we have followed up on its contents? Absolutely.

The Zimmerman campaign also did not recognize a sad reality of 2022: Money lost to the internet and social media has forced newspapers and other news outlets to reduce if not eliminate reporting positions.

This translates into less coverage, particularly in an election year with races for Congress, the state Assembly and state Senate.

The reduced coverage is part of a national trend that should frighten all Americans. Just think about what else is being missed, especially in areas hurt worse than Long Island.

It is also worth noting that it was the media led by The New York Times that – albeit after the fact – actually uncovered Santos’ lies.

This brings us to the question of how to prevent another George Santos from getting elected.

We can rule out the threat of expulsion from a Republican-controlled Congress after watching them spend four days trying to elect a House speaker last week.

A majority of House Republicans, including newly minted House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, are election deniers who voted not to certify the 2020 presidential election. The reason?  The Big Lie that President Biden did not win in a free and fair election.

And the New York Post has reported that Santos’ fabrications were a “running joke” among the Republican House leadership during the campaign.

Cairo said the Nassau Republican Party will not endorse Santos in 2024 and we would like to believe Republicans will take a closer look at candidates in 2024. Then again he did not offer any changes in policy that would prevent another candidate like Santos from gaining the party’s backing.

The Democrats also need to take a long look in the mirror ahead of 2024. Jay Jacobs should receive particular scrutiny after presiding over the loss of four congressional seats in New York State in 2022 and all four countywide positions in 2021.

And both county parties should at least pledge to take steps to prevent fraudulent candidates from being nominated.

Media companies such as ourselves must also more aggressively vet candidates – no matter what the financial challenges. And let readers know when candidates do not cooperate.

And voters must also demand more of both political parties and better appreciate – and support – the vital role played by local media that serve as watchdogs for their communities.