Ruh roh.Caps mine.
Chris Christie now faces a federal investigation into whether he IMPROPERLY USED HURRICANE SANDY RELIEF AID to pay for tourism ads that featured his family when he was running for re-election, according to CNN.
As Cokie Roberts observed on NPR this morning, investigations tend to take on a life of their own. I strongly suspect Christie has a lot to hide.
We’re going to need a bigger popcorn bag.
Please share widely!
danfromwaltham says
I wonder if Christie was given the okay for these ads by the Obama Adm. If so, put butter on my popcorn, and extra salt.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/06/rand-paul-knocks-chris-christie-for-hurricane-sandy-tv-ads/
JimC says
But he’s right about the NSA.
And he’s probably right about Christie.
SomervilleTom says
I watched the video of Mr. Paul’s questioning. In my view, he made an utter fool of himself. Rule number one for every attorney is “Don’t ask a question that you don’t know the answer to”.
Mr. Paul asked an overly-broad question (“Do you think relief funds should be spent on advertising?”). He didn’t like the answer — the witness explained, quite calmly, that the agency has studied the effect of advertising for economic development in other disaster areas and found that such spend actually DECREASES the amount of relief required, because it INCREASES economic development. Advertising works.
Since he didn’t like the answer, Mr. Paul ignored it and then went on a long-winded tirade because — oh the horror of it — a governor (in a re-election campaign) included his face (“mug” was the word Mr. Paul used) on the ads. Mr. Paul then went on to rant about advertising for Obamacare — a typical example of the way right-wingers shamelessly distort the truth whenever they think it suits them.
I think this traffic episode is a disaster for Mr. Christie. I think it should block his road to higher office as effectively as he blocked the road for thousands of commuters.
I think this question about Hurricane Sandy relief is a distraction from that, and I think we should move on.
danfromwaltham says
Taxpayer money should not be used like that. Keep in mind Tom, we are running budget deficits and when Congress and Obama cut veterans benefits like they did, they need to cut out advertising of the Jersey Shore first, and not allow Christie to pump up is favorability rating. This was an incumbent protection ad, likely payback for his bearhug of Obama in 2012.
Rand Paul had it right, Christie is ‘King of pork’. True, Christie is an upgrade from Jon Corzine and Jim Mc Greevey, but it’s NJ, can’t expect much.
mike_cote says
DFW pretending not to like Cristie.
jconway says
1) Paul’s question was stupid and goes to the heart of why he represents the stupid wing of the stupid party. It is just common sense when promoting development in a disaster area to bring tourism back as part of the recovery. Even the Philippines is doing it-and frankly when I visit in a month I actually feel like my spending can help in it’s own way. It’s a rare win win idea opposed in a knee jerk fashion by a man representing a faction of a party totally devoid of them.
2) We shouldn’t drop it though. If Christie put himself and his family in the ads we can ask if it was a legitimate use of funds to recover the beachfront hit by Sandy. I know I am less likely to want to visit those beaches seeing him on there. Seems similar to Galvin or Daley plastering their names and faces on official documents.
ryepower12 says
Even if we assume TV advertisements for tourism were worth spending hurricane relief aid on, there’s more to it here. There were multiple bids for the commercials, the lowest bidding ad company requesting a $2.5 million fee. That bid would not have included Chris Christie and his family in the ad.
The bid that was selected was $4.7 million, over two million bucks more expensive, which just so happened to make Chris Christie a central part of the ad.
Maybe the $25 million for the TV spots was an appropriate use of funds, maybe it wasn’t.
But wasting over two million bucks in ad fees to do the ad because the one Christie wanted just so happened to put his face in a great, state-financed ad in the middle of a reelection campaign is a separate question altogether.
It’s a very relevant question and fits in perfectly with all the other questions surrounding his governance from the past few months.
SomervilleTom says
I was commenting on the cited comments from Rand Paul, who made no mention of the $2.2M extra paid the firm that ultimately performed the work. I have no problem pursuing the very legitimate question of whether that extra $2.2M was an appropriate use of relief funds.
I certainly find the difference between the $2.5M low bid and the $4.7M award interesting. I am curious to hear Mr. Cristie enumerate, under oath, the differences that compelled him to accept a bid that was EIGHTY EIGHT percent higher than the low bid.
I think the true nature of Mr. Cristie and his administration has been revealed. I have no doubt that some will find that nature appealing. I personally hope Mr. Christie goes the way of Spiro Agnew.