Sometimes, a news story breaks that transcends the conventional boundaries of political parties, culture, ideology, interests, and even parody. It’s the story that gets a reaction from news outlets as diverse as DRUDGE REPORT, Gawker, USA Today, The Huffington Post, Bleacher Report, and everyone in between. It’s the story that simply must be shared, the one you tell your friends about, the one that gets all the talking heads, well… talking.
Last week, that story was a New Jersey’s Watchdog analysis of spending records that revealed that New Jersey governor Chris Christie has spent more than $300,000 on food and alcohol during his five years as governor – including more than $82,000 to Delaware North Sportservice, which operates concessions at MetLife stadium where Christie often attends NFL games. Traditionally MetLife allows him to use the luxury boxes at the games for free, but he has to pick up the tab for food and beverages.
The money comes out of Christie’s annual $95,000 expense allowance, which he receives in addition to his annual $175,000 salary. Christie returns surplus funds to the state each year, but Treasury officials say he does not submit receipts or accounting for the public monies he spends.
The governor’s press secretary was quick to respond with a statement, which explained that “The official nature and business purpose of the event remains the case regardless of whether the event is at the State House, Drumthwacket or a sporting venue.”
It’s also important to note that the spending at NFL games took place during the 2010 and 2011 seasons. The following year, in what appeared to be an attempt to save political face, the New Jersey Republican State Committee reimbursed the state for the football spending, so taxpayers ultimately were not on the hook for it.
You can’t undo the past, however, and if you do the math, the fact remains that Christie spent on average more than $2,500 a game on concessions.
Watchdog in Sports Illustrated
More than 100 websites and news outlets picked up the story, with reactions ranging from subtle criticism to downright outrage. Here are a few of the highlights:
“Let he who has not spent way too much of other people’s money on beer and nachos cast the first stone,” quipped Buzzfeed.
“Chris Christie, I salute you: It takes skill to spend $82,000 on snacks!” read the Salon headline. “New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s spending may have been despicably wasteful, but it’s also impressive!”
Multiple accounts of the story, such as the Daily Caller‘s coverage, noted that Christie’s food spending dropped sharply at the same time as his own efforts to lose weight, with his monthly food spending dropping by 40 percent since he underwent Lap-Band surgery.
The Washington Post covered the story as a guilt trip by listing ten other things Christie could have spent $82,000 on, such as a block of Jersey Shore boardwalk rebuilding, a year’s household income for the average New Jerseyean, or three years of tuition at Rutgers.
The lede in the New York Times highlighted how Christie’s big personal spending clashes with his conservative rhetoric: “Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey likes to point out how he has made big cuts to state spending. But when it comes to using his allowance money as governor, he appears happy to be a high roller.”
Forbes echoed this sentiment: “One of the major policy tenets of the Republican Party is limiting government spending. But New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, considering a run for the presidency in 2016, may not have gotten that memo yet.”
“We assume that $82,594 amounts to roughly seven beers and one soda in NFL stadium prices,” National Journal jibed. “While there’s nothing to suggest that the concessions spending was improper, especially since it was paid back to the state, it shows just how much Christie is willing to spend on football, or have spent on his behalf.”
Even the satirical Onion couldn’t resist taking a shot. “Impressive, but I’m still not sure he’s ready to misallocate funds at the presidential level,” wrote a fictional respondent.
At the end of the day, thanks in no small part to the sheer irony of the headline, the story turned into a huge media dogpile, thrusting Watchdog into the center of the national conversation. For Mark Lagerkvist and all the other reporters at Watchdog, it’s a refreshing reminder that substantive investigative journalism and viral internet stories do not need to be mutual exclusive things. And it’s an encouraging example of how audiences across the political spectrum – and even those who don’t closely follow their government and elected officials – can into a story that holds elected officials accountable for frivolous, freewheeling spending.