SOMERVILLE, NJ – Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno should explicitly detail and publicly release all information regarding travel and security expenses incurred by her and her official office senior staff since announcing her candidacy on Jan.17th, according to state Assemblyman and Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli.

Ciattarelli said he was “troubled” that while Guadagno dinged Governor Christie during her kickoff announcement in January for the controversy surrounding the Governor’s travel and security costs, the Lt. Governor regularly travels to campaign events with a security detail funded by state taxpayers.

“Incumbent politicians like the Lt. Governor, who are running for re-election or election to a higher office, should not be forcing state taxpayers to cover their travel and security costs,” said Ciattarelli, who added that if the Lt. Governor has already been doing the right thing and reimbursing taxpayers, she should publicly say so.

Sign Up for E-News

 “With all Kim’s talk about auditing how state government spends money, perhaps she could start with her own office, and let taxpayers know exactly how much they have involuntarily contributed to her campaign over the last six weeks.”

Ciattarelli noted that after ducking questions from the press at her kickoff, the Lt. Governor jumped into the back seat of a state-owned SUV surrounded by her security detail.

“Any time the Lt. Governor makes a campaign stop – and she has made plenty over the past six and a half weeks – her campaign committee should fully reimburse taxpayers for any and all expenses incurred,” said Ciattarelli. “It strikes me as a bit hypocritical that the Lt. Governor’s stump speeches about fiscal responsibility and financial audits are sandwiched between trips up and down the Turnpike and Parkway in the back a state-owned SUV surrounded by a taxpayer-funded security detail.”

Ciattarelli said that if elected Governor, he would implement a policy that required both he and his Lt. Governor to rigorously detail and segregate costs related to purely political business versus official business related to the duties of the elected office. Any and all political costs would be paid for by a private campaign fund, not taxpayers.