Christie's use of Sandy aid under investigation

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104
Christie's use of Sandy aid under investigation

The U.S. government is going to look at how $25 Million in Sandy aid funds was spent, after a firm with a lower bid lost out to one that proposed using Governor Christie's family in ads. I hate that I can't copy & paste from SFGate, but you can read more here:

US probes NJ's $25M post-storm marketing effort - SFGate

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

So the issue wasn't whether or not he used the aid, which was an approved use of the money... but the investigation is about which firm was chosen to fulfill the contract because they didn't use the lowest bid? I don't really see how proposing to use the family in the ad really makes that much difference, because they could have chosen the lower bid and still told them they wanted the family to be in the ad.

I would prefer that the government spend money investigating why the company was chosen to do the Obamacare website that cost like $100 million than over why this $2 million was spent. Is there any evidence that the company they chose to do the ads didn't do a good job?

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

Not sure that this is a good use of money that it takes to investigate. There are a lot of situations in recent history that have been a poor use of government funds, or have been illegal use of funds.

That being said, I really dont like Christie so this does not make me to concerned

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 13 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I do not like Christie and I think they are issues that need to be looked into, but in combination to the other investigation it does seem like someone is trying to pile on Christie.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

This investigation was opened long ago, so this is not "piling on" in any way. The timing with the bridge fiasco is coincidental, I think.

I do think this needs to be looked into. The lower bid proposal was to highlight the recovery of the area, which was what the funds were intended for. The higher bid not only was going to feature Christie's family, but it also highlighted what Christie had done for the area, i.e. it became essentially a $25 Million reelection campaign ad, which was NOT what the funds were intended for. I do think it was mismanagement at best, but possibly outright fraud and campaign financing corruption at worst. Like the bridge fiasco, it's going to depend on how much they can prove Christie knew and when. Did he somehow sway the decision to use the higher-bidding company? Did he know the ads were going to highlight *him* in such an incredibly positive way? If so, then I think he should be held accountable.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

#1 not coincidental - he - did these things at around the same time so of course they would come up at the same time!... and of course the other side would save it to pile drive him.. DUH! it is smart politically to do so! If not.. they would be stupid not to..
#2 I don't much care
#3 he deserves it if he did it
#4 waste of tax payer money

He already is a dirty guy.. let his term run out and the people will vote him out not sure why we need to pay to do this.. That or just recall him! and be done with it all together! The fund issue sounds like what is done with local bond measures and we pay for a roof repair on a school and they go with a guy and the guy does crap work and so we have to have another bond passed... well... Maybe Christie didn't go with a cheapo guy... maybe he went with a BETTER guy.. who knows.. do we really want to go to court and figure it all out.. what a PITA>.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Spacers" wrote:

This investigation was opened long ago, so this is not "piling on" in any way. The timing with the bridge fiasco is coincidental, I think.

I do think this needs to be looked into. The lower bid proposal was to highlight the recovery of the area, which was what the funds were intended for. The higher bid not only was going to feature Christie's family, but it also highlighted what Christie had done for the area, i.e. it became essentially a $25 Million reelection campaign ad, which was NOT what the funds were intended for. I do think it was mismanagement at best, but possibly outright fraud and campaign financing corruption at worst. Like the bridge fiasco, it's going to depend on how much they can prove Christie knew and when. Did he somehow sway the decision to use the higher-bidding company? Did he know the ads were going to highlight *him* in such an incredibly positive way? If so, then I think he should be held accountable.

There are so many different areas that are taken into account when awarding a government bid, I think they will be able to prove the only reason he chose this bid was because of how it would highlight him.