Chris Christie Is Now Waging 23 Court Battles to Keep State Documents Secret

There’s a lot the New Jersey Republican doesn’t want you to know.

Jerry Mennenga/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On his first day as governor of New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie promised “a new era of accountability and transparency.” But five years later, local reporters and watchdog groups accuse Christie’s administration of making unprecedented efforts to keep public records a secret.

Stonewalled by the Christie administration, media outlets have been forced to sue to obtain even routinely disclosed information, such as payroll data. Rather than release documents connected to the George Washington Bridge scandal, pay-to-play allegations, possible ethics violations, and the out-of-state jaunts Christie has made while weighing a run for president, Christie’s office and several state agencies have waged costly court battles. As the 2016 presidential primary race draws closer, and Christie considers jumping in, his administration is fighting 23 different open-records requests in court.

“The track record is abysmal,” says Jennifer Borg, general counsel for the North Jersey Media Group. Her organization, which publishes the Record, has sued the state for public documents a half-dozen times since Christie took office. When a judge determines that the state withheld records illegally—which happens frequently—her group wins legal fees. As of September 2014, Christie’s administration had paid $441,000 to North Jersey Media Group and other media outlets for records. And that doesn’t count the cost of government lawyers’ time.

The fight has become so expensive for the state because when newspapers go to court for these records, they usually win. But winning doesn’t automatically produce the sought-after records. “We can and do beat them in court. But as long as they’re appealing—I don’t want to call it a pyrrhic victory, but we’re not going to get the records,” says Walter Luers, an attorney who helped a transparency project run by the state Libertarian Party sue for public access for Christie’s travel expenses. “Appeals take two to three years. We’re already into the presidential elections. By the time we get these records, Christie could have a new address.”

Christie’s reluctance to let these records go is understandable. On Tuesday, for example, the New York Times published an investigation of ritzy trips, underwritten by megadonors and foreign leaders, the governor has taken abroad. Some of those accounts were based on public documents that local newspapers obtained through lawsuits.

Below is a roundup of the Christie administration’s most closely-guarded secrets.

Out-of-state travel: Christie has traveled around the country to raise money for the GOP and to test the waters for a 2016 presidential run. But no one knows whether it’s influential donors or taxpayers who are footing the bill for Christie’s travels. Last year, New Jersey Watchdog, a conservative news site, demanded to know who picked up the tab for more than 60 unofficial trips Christie took out of state beginning in 2012. Christie’s office denied its request, and a judge tossed Watchdog‘s resulting lawsuit in July for being too broad.

In a separate request, New Jersey Watchdog asked for records detailing Christie’s out-of-state air travel expenses. That request also went to court, and the judge ordered the governor’s office to release some travel documents. The records showed the state reimbursing an unknown third party thousands of dollars for Christie’s trip to the 2013 Super Bowl in New Orleans.

Taxpayer-fueled fundraising: Because Christie’s travel is connected to his fundraising work as the Republican Governors Association chair, the RGA probably paid for many of his trips. But the Record, one of Jersey’s largest newspapers, and WNYC, a radio station, requested documents indicating whether taxpayers shouldered any of Christie’s travel costs—such as overtime for the security detail that always accompanies the governor—while he raised cash for the GOP.

Christie’s office sent WNYC “a document so heavily redacted as to be all but meaningless,” says Laura Walker, the president of New York Public Radio, which owns WNYC. The outlet is suing for unredacted files. The Record also went to court for the documents, and the state and the newspaper are trying to reach a settlement.

Bridgegate emails: In January 2014, a judge ordered the release of top Christie staffers’ communications about the George Washington Bridge lane closures. Reporters for the Record had previously requested some of those same communications in 2013, and the state released some records in response. But reading the new documents, they realized that Christie’s office had failed to turn over critical documents that were covered by their request. The outlet sued and won access to a limited number of additional emails, says Borg, the North Jersey Media Group lawyer. “It’s still the most egregious of these cases,” she says.

Ethical gray areas: While investigators for the New Jersey legislature were scrutinizing Christie’s bridge scandal, they discovered another one: Members of the governor’s office had doubled as campaign operatives for Christie’s 2013 reelection bid. State law mandates that Christie run his campaign separately from his office. WNYC requested to see the instructions that Christie’s ethics officer sent to members of the governor’s office on working for the campaign. The request was denied. The radio station is suing for these records.

Political allies: State employees working for Christie’s campaign kept a list of New Jersey mayors who appeared to support Christie and approached these mayors about endorsing Christie. WNYC demanded to see this list. The governor’s office refused the request. WNYC is suing for these records.

Superstorm Sandy aftermath: When New Jersey was doling out government contracts to clean up the devastation of superstorm Sandy, Christie was serving as the vice chair of the Republican Governors Association. So it raised some eyebrows when five of the companies Jersey hired immediately donated $160,000 to the RGA.

The Record requested to see the invoices that one of those contractors, the Witt Group, submitted for cleanup work. (The Witt group gave the RGA $75,450.) The state gave the Record severely redacted invoices, and the paper’s parent company took New Jersey to court. The paper won redacted versions of the documents, and attorney’s fees from the state coffers.

Separately, the Fair Share Housing Center is suing after the state refused to give up documents describing why some low-income families were denied Sandy rebuilding funds.

Meeting schedules: New Jersey reporters frequently request the details of Christie’s calendar. That’s a routine request in any other state. But in New Jersey, the governor’s office responds with press releases about the governor’s public events—not his behind-the-scenes itinerary.

Possible evidence of pay-to-play: New Jersey relies on 43 private companies to manage select state pension funds worth $14 billion. How did the state select those companies? Several prominent reporters, including Joseph DiStefano of the Philadelphia Inquirer, questioned whether it had something to do with the $11.6 million those financial companies’ employees have donated to New Jersey pols and political groups.

Amid mounting pressure from the media, Christie’s office agreed to investigate one source of those donations: Charlie Baker, who ran a Massachusetts venture capital firm called General Catalyst and who ran for governor of that state in 2014. In May 2011, Baker donated $10,000 to the New Jersey Republican Party. Seven months later, the state of New Jersey plowed $25 million in public pension funds into Baker’s firm.

The International Business Times asked to see the documents General Catalyst sent to New Jersey’s treasury department. “Those documents would show whether General Catalyst specifically promoted Baker’s involvement in the firm when pitching its investment to New Jersey,” IBTimes wrote. The governor’s office denied the request. IBTimes is currently seeking the records through the New Jersey Government Records Council rather than through a lawsuit.

The results of pay-to-play investigations: While the audit of the General Catalyst investment was ongoing, in 2014, Baker was running for governor of Massachusetts. And Christie, as chair of the Republican Governors Association, showered Baker’s campaign with millions of dollars in ads. In the fall of 2014, the International Business Times requested findings from the audit, which should have concluded in late May or early June. In response, Christie officials revealed that they had set a new date for finalizing the audit—two days after the election—which allowed them to avoid releasing any findings before Baker’s campaign ended. (Baker won.) The governor’s office released the audit, which cleared Baker of wrongdoing, in January.

…And even the records requests themselves: After the George Washington Bridge shenanigans burst into public view, a New Jersey citizen demanded a list of all the public records requests news organizations made about the bridge closure. The man who made the request, Harry Scheeler, wanted to evaluate whether New Jersey had followed the state’s open records law. Scheeler, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, has taken the governor to court in order to get his records. The records are still sealed, and the case is ongoing.

In a separate request, the Bergen Record asked for the names of the anonymous state records custodians denying media outlets’ requests. The governor’s office denied its request.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate