More than half of the contributions Delegate to Congress Donna Christensen has received in the current election cycle are linked to a Washington contractor who is the subject of a federal inquiry.
According to an article today in the Washington Post, Christensen has received at least $37,000 from contractor Jeffrey Thompson, who is suspected of using “straw” or phantom donors to evade contribution limits that are set for candidates running for office. His operations have drawn the attention of Federal authorities.
According to the article, Thompson’s accounting firm Thompson, Cobb, Brazilio and Associates, has 189 contracts with the federal government, worth $17.1 million. The company has done some business in the Virgin Islands, auditing grant funds awarded by the U.S. Department of Education and the Federal Highway Administration. TCBA recently advertised for an accounting position based in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands.
Recently, Christensen has urged the Federal Election Commission to investigate the election system of the Virgin Islands, citing public discontent with the way the Board of Elections in operating. Perhaps this current development will hasten their acceptance of her request.
As many of you heard recently, CIF President Michael Springer, at left, delivered the first in a series of radio announcements that will target specific issues and offer analysis on our most pressing concerns.
The feedback on the comments was extremely positive, so CIF will sponsor then as often as possible, and we thank those of you who have already donated! But airtime costs money and we're seeking your help.
If you'd like to help keep our voices on the air, please donate whatever you can using the PayPal button below. We thank you in advance for your support.
Bert Bryan, Mary Moorehead and Roker, are the worst thing that happen to the convention.
This actually reads like a constitution and not a full history text. The document is fair:however, it still needs some tweaking.Is it necessary for the preamble to be so lengthy? A brief statement could make the point that all the previous & present inhabitants are appreciated.
This document has stirred a lot of controversy, yet no other bloggers have commented. Why? Do “natives” prefer to bash the messager? I have heard other delegates verbally attacking Eugene Petersen, instead of critiquing his substitute amendment.
Since this is my first time viewing this website, I am surprise that there has been no response to Petersen’s draft. I guess the people of the VI supports it. As it is said, silence is approval. The VI for the first time may get a constitution. I am being optimistic. Is the lack of interest a sign of what will happen in a referundum to ratify this document? What is important to the electorate? Do they want a constitution or not?
After submitting my comment, I noticed there was a previous comment posted by jackson. While I do agree with this person’s opinion, my point about not getting a response to the actual document is supported. Is just denigrating another person a topic of discussion in the VI?