Text size:

Money allegations irk locals

By Justin Rocket Silverman |

November 29, 2007

Allegations that Rudy Giuliani used taxpayer money for security while on trysts with his then-mistress Judith Nathan is raising the ire of New Yorkers.

"I think this is ludicrous. Why do I have to pay for this? But that's what he does, that Giuliani," said Jerome Levitt, 71, of Staten Island. "I think he's a disaster."

According to a report on politico.com yesterday, Giuliani secretly billed city agencies tens of thousands of dollars in 1999 and 2000 to cover the cost of his security while traveling in the Hamptons with Nathan. When the city comptroller asked for an explanation of the costs, Giuliani's staff refused, citing security reasons, according to the report.

While taxpayers understand that high-ranking elected officials need security, that view quickly changes when they're footing his security team's gas, hotels and meals while protecting a married mayor going on illicit rendezvous.

"That's terrible. I mean, how could he use our money to visit his mistress, instead of helping with health insurance, child support, with everything?" asked Bianca Infante, 26, of the Bronx.

Giuliani and Nathan married in 2003 after a messy and very public divorce from his wife, TV journalist Donna Hanover.

Gene Russianoff, an attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group, said that while it may not be technically illegal to spend public money for security, doing so is bad form for any mayor.

"Putting aside the letter of the law, the appearance of this stinks," said Russianoff. "There are certain things in life that set off alarm bells. One of them is when activities are paid for in convoluted and hard to track ways."

City Comptroller William Thompson wrote he was "unable to verify that these expenses were for legitimate or necessary purposes," reported politico.com. Whether these allegations would have any impact on the former mayor's presidential prospects is uncertain.

"The frontrunners always getting things tossed at them," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Stuff like this is going to turn up for everyone in the race. It is interesting, but not decisive."

Alan Chartock, a SUNY professor of political science, disagreed.

"This is salacious," he said. "It's not the fact that the mayor needs protection. It's the chutzpa factor of using that protection while visiting a mistress. If he was just going to see a concert it would be completely different thing."