Botox, Hermes and George Santos
It was the Birkin that broke the camel’s back.
This week, Representative George Santos, a Republican from New York, was expelled from Congress, a move so rare it has only happened six times since the formation of this country. The last expulsion from the legislative body happened during the American Civil War.
Santos was elected into the US House of Representatives in November 2022, following a successful campaign for a seat as the representative for New York’s third congressional district, which includes the north shore of Long Island, and happens to be the wealthiest congressional district in the state of New York.
Santos’ campaign involved a tapestry of lies and schemes designed to paint a picture of a successful man who had faced adversity but still pulled himself up by his bootstraps to make it to one of the highest governmental bodies in the land.
He lied about being Jewish and a descendant of Holocaust survivors (he was raised Catholic, and his grandparents are from Brazil), he lied about losing his mother to cancer following her experience of the 9/11 terror attacks (she died in 2016 and wasn’t even in the US in 2001), he lied about holding a bachelor’s degree in economics and finance from Baruch College (he does not, and there is no record of him graduating from any university), he lied about being a Wall Street finance bro at Goldman Sachs (the company has no record of him working there), and he lied about owning an animal rescue charity.
So yes, he embellished. He also used $6000 of campaign financing for personal shopping. While I’m sure many of you have lived in countries with corrupt politicians who use the power and prestige of their office to benefit themselves, I know I have, this corruption story is uniquely American. Because it’s not so much that Santos lied and stole from his campaign which ultimately led to his expulsion and public outcry, but the issue is what he bought with that money.
Receipts from Hermes, Ferragamo, Sephora, a Botox treatment and a subscription to OnlyFans had everyone clutching their pearls.
I believe part of why this case has gained such cultural cache (please see all the TikToks) is that we all understand what luxury fashion is. Designer clothes and handbags are in our everyday lexicon: from song lyrics, to unboxings on YouTube, to a celebrity campaign. Luxury is what we aspire to. So when a politician is exposed as having had used campaign contributions to fill out his Sephora basket or snag the latest purse at Hermes, everyone is outraged. Especially during an economic downturn when many Americans are struggling to put food on the table, let alone splurge on Italian shoes.
The outrage also comes from the idea that politicians should be public servants: humble, Jesus-like, and not flashing their wealth to their constituents. Of course, not all politicians serve the public even though that is literally in their job description, and many are seen anywhere but their offices (see: Eric Adams). The landscape for political financing has shifted in the last several decades. Politicians rub shoulders with the elite in fancy hotels, private jets and manicured golf courses in order to secure campaign funds. Politicians who don’t have to hob knob usually are the elite. Even then, running for office today is more expensive than ever — it’s a crowded field and there are too many images, people and events competing for one’s attention.
The Santos case puts this all into perspective. The reality is that American politics reeks of money, it runs on it, so why are people so shocked that a politician is living lavishly? Why does the public still have the expectation that politicians are humble servants, and not baddies with Botox and filler?
Spending campaign funds at Sephora feels particularly selfish and a personal slight considering that it may be difficult to spin shopping for bronzer as a public good or worthwhile investment. I wonder: Would the public be as outraged if he had used the funds on real estate? On buying shares at a thriving start-up? Or even just hoarding it?
I’m not sure.
That got me thinking: Why is spending on fashion and beauty considered frivolous and a brazen display of wealth and disregard for the American voter, so much so that the perpetrator is seen as having gone too far and is ousted from Congress? When there are a number of politicians who use campaign financing on illicit and illegal activities but continue to serve their districts. Is it because we largely associate fashion and beauty with women and femininity? And since society hardly ever takes women seriously, we’re reluctant to intellectualise this wrongdoing.
All corruption is bad. Whether it’s insider trading or shopping for a Birkin. And I hope this case galvanises the public to call out malfeasance, especially since, politicians are meant to be working for you.
