Post by Sam on Nov 2, 2009 19:08:51 GMT -5
Credit: politico.com
Connecticut Democrats have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging GOP Senate candidate Linda McMahon's campaign illegally colluded with the WWE, founded by husband Vince, to remove offensive wrestling videos from YouTube.
The complaint alleges that the WWE pulled the videos after Democrats allied with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) complained that the company's hugely popular events feature "simulated rape" and other deeply non-PC shenanigans.
McMahon spokesman Ed Patru says the complaint is crass politics: “It’s a baseless accusation and the campaign has complied with all FEC rules and regulations. This latest attack from Chris Dodd speaks volumes about just how worried he is about Linda’s campaign. ... It’s troubling that Chris Dodd’s political apparatus seems more concerned with watching wrestling videos on the Internet than restoring trust in government.”
"In swift response to the negative attention Ms. McMahon was receiving from the videos, her family's company -- that same day ordered YouTube to remove the videos from its website," the complaint says.
“If Linda McMahon is going to talk glowingly about her role as CEO of the WWE, then she also must answer for the kind of female-degrading, sexually-exploitive, steroid-fueled programming it’s become known for,” said Connecticut Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.
“And furthermore, she’s sorely mistaken if she thinks the WWE can do her dirty work for her as she stays above the fray. She might claim to be a different kind of Senator, but Linda McMahon’s illegal coordination with the WWE doesn’t do anything to bolster that image. If anything, it looks like McMahon has chosen to call in a corporation run by her family to fight her battles for her.”
A call to the McMahon campaign wasn't immediately returned.
Nancy DiNardo
State Party Chairwoman
Connecticut Democratic Party
330 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06106,
Complainant,
v.
Linda McMahon
P.O. Box 271386
West Hartford, CT 06127;
Linda McMahon for Senate 2010
P.O. Box 15114
Arlington, VA 22215; and
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.
1241 East Main Street
Stamford, CT 06902,
Respondents.
COMPLAINT
The Connecticut Democratic Party files this complaint under 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1) against Linda McMahon; her campaign committee, Linda McMahon for Senate 2010; and World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. ("WWE") (collectively "Respondents") for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA"). WWE has made corporate in-kind contributions to Linda McMahon for Senate 2010 in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441b.
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Linda McMahon is a candidate for the United States Senate from the state of Connecticut. Until September 16, 2009, the day on which she declared her candidacy, Ms. McMahon served as the Chief Executive Officer of WWE. WWE is a publicly-traded sports entertainment company focusing on professional wrestling. Ms. McMahon started the company with her husband, Vincent K. McMahon, in 1982. When she stepped down as Chief Executive Officer to run for the United States Senate, her husband replaced her as Chief Executive Officer; he also serves as Chairman of the Board. The McMahons' two children also have leadership rolls at WWE. The McMahons' son, Shane McMahon serves as the company's Executive Vice President, Global Media, and their daughter, Stephanie McMahon-Levesque, is the Executive Vice President, Creative Development and Operations. The McMahons own a controlling majority of the stock in WWE.
On October 16, 2009, the political news website Talking Points Memo published a story regarding several distasteful videos from WWE television programming that appeared on YouTube. The YouTube videos showed WWE wrestlers engaging in simulated rape, a public sex scene, and one "wrestler having sex with a corpse." As reported in the article and elsewhere, Ms. McMahon was criticized for presiding over a company that would produce such programming.
In swift response to the negative attention Ms. McMahon was receiving from the videos, her family's company – that same day – ordered YouTube to remove the videos from its website. Robert Zimmerman, WWE's Vice President of Public Relations and Corporate Communications, told reporters that WWE ordered the videos to be removed because they were "copyrighted material" and "our intellectual property."
However, a search of YouTube using the phrase "WWE" continues to produce almost 500,000 results as of the date of this complaint. Thus, it appears that WWE only ordered YouTube to remove the videos that may be damaging to Ms. McMahon's campaign, and neglected to protect WWE's other copyrighted material and intellectual property. In sum, WWE has selectively enforced its rights only insofar as they benefit Ms. McMahon's candidacy.
B. LEGAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to FECA "t is unlawful for … any corporation ... to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which ... a Senator [is] to be voted for" and for "any candidate, political committee, or other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution" from a corporation. 2 U.S.C. § 441b; see also 11 C.F.R. § 114.2(b). "[T]he provision of any goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a contribution." 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(1). Any expenditure that is "coordinated" is an "in-kind contribution to … the candidate … with whom or with which it was coordinated."
The facts demonstrate that WWE made expenditures in connection with an election, in clear violation of FECA. WWE expended its corporate resources – including the time of Mr. Zimmerman and other corporate personnel, and its attorneys – all used in the service of Ms. McMahon's campaign to force YouTube to remove only the videos that reflected poorly on Ms. McMahon, while ignoring the multitude of other WWE-owned material still hosted on YouTube. The speed at which WWE acted to have the videos removed once Ms. McMahon and her campaign came under criticism, and the incredibly selective nature of WWE's copyright claims, prove that the corporation's actions were solely in service of preventing further damage to Ms. McMahon's candidacy.
Given Ms. McMahon's long relationship with WWE, her husband's role as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, the fact that Ms. McMahon's family controls the company, and the speed at which WWE acted, WWE's efforts on behalf of Ms. McMahon were surely coordinated with her or her campaign. Accordingly, WWE made, and Ms. McMahon and her campaign committee accepted, prohibited in-kind corporate contributions in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441b.
C. REQUESTED ACTION
Respondents have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by making and accepting illegal in-kind corporate contributions. We request that the Commission investigate these violations, enjoin Respondents from further violations, and assign the maximum fines permitted by law.
Sincerely,
_______________________
Nancy DiNardo
State Party Chairwoman
Connecticut Democratic Party
330 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06106,
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of ___________, 2009.
_______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
___________________________________________
Sorry for the long ass read but I just copied it all from the site, though it would interest a few people on here.
Connecticut Democrats have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging GOP Senate candidate Linda McMahon's campaign illegally colluded with the WWE, founded by husband Vince, to remove offensive wrestling videos from YouTube.
The complaint alleges that the WWE pulled the videos after Democrats allied with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) complained that the company's hugely popular events feature "simulated rape" and other deeply non-PC shenanigans.
McMahon spokesman Ed Patru says the complaint is crass politics: “It’s a baseless accusation and the campaign has complied with all FEC rules and regulations. This latest attack from Chris Dodd speaks volumes about just how worried he is about Linda’s campaign. ... It’s troubling that Chris Dodd’s political apparatus seems more concerned with watching wrestling videos on the Internet than restoring trust in government.”
"In swift response to the negative attention Ms. McMahon was receiving from the videos, her family's company -- that same day ordered YouTube to remove the videos from its website," the complaint says.
“If Linda McMahon is going to talk glowingly about her role as CEO of the WWE, then she also must answer for the kind of female-degrading, sexually-exploitive, steroid-fueled programming it’s become known for,” said Connecticut Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.
“And furthermore, she’s sorely mistaken if she thinks the WWE can do her dirty work for her as she stays above the fray. She might claim to be a different kind of Senator, but Linda McMahon’s illegal coordination with the WWE doesn’t do anything to bolster that image. If anything, it looks like McMahon has chosen to call in a corporation run by her family to fight her battles for her.”
A call to the McMahon campaign wasn't immediately returned.
Nancy DiNardo
State Party Chairwoman
Connecticut Democratic Party
330 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06106,
Complainant,
v.
Linda McMahon
P.O. Box 271386
West Hartford, CT 06127;
Linda McMahon for Senate 2010
P.O. Box 15114
Arlington, VA 22215; and
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.
1241 East Main Street
Stamford, CT 06902,
Respondents.
COMPLAINT
The Connecticut Democratic Party files this complaint under 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1) against Linda McMahon; her campaign committee, Linda McMahon for Senate 2010; and World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. ("WWE") (collectively "Respondents") for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA"). WWE has made corporate in-kind contributions to Linda McMahon for Senate 2010 in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441b.
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Linda McMahon is a candidate for the United States Senate from the state of Connecticut. Until September 16, 2009, the day on which she declared her candidacy, Ms. McMahon served as the Chief Executive Officer of WWE. WWE is a publicly-traded sports entertainment company focusing on professional wrestling. Ms. McMahon started the company with her husband, Vincent K. McMahon, in 1982. When she stepped down as Chief Executive Officer to run for the United States Senate, her husband replaced her as Chief Executive Officer; he also serves as Chairman of the Board. The McMahons' two children also have leadership rolls at WWE. The McMahons' son, Shane McMahon serves as the company's Executive Vice President, Global Media, and their daughter, Stephanie McMahon-Levesque, is the Executive Vice President, Creative Development and Operations. The McMahons own a controlling majority of the stock in WWE.
On October 16, 2009, the political news website Talking Points Memo published a story regarding several distasteful videos from WWE television programming that appeared on YouTube. The YouTube videos showed WWE wrestlers engaging in simulated rape, a public sex scene, and one "wrestler having sex with a corpse." As reported in the article and elsewhere, Ms. McMahon was criticized for presiding over a company that would produce such programming.
In swift response to the negative attention Ms. McMahon was receiving from the videos, her family's company – that same day – ordered YouTube to remove the videos from its website. Robert Zimmerman, WWE's Vice President of Public Relations and Corporate Communications, told reporters that WWE ordered the videos to be removed because they were "copyrighted material" and "our intellectual property."
However, a search of YouTube using the phrase "WWE" continues to produce almost 500,000 results as of the date of this complaint. Thus, it appears that WWE only ordered YouTube to remove the videos that may be damaging to Ms. McMahon's campaign, and neglected to protect WWE's other copyrighted material and intellectual property. In sum, WWE has selectively enforced its rights only insofar as they benefit Ms. McMahon's candidacy.
B. LEGAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to FECA "t is unlawful for … any corporation ... to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which ... a Senator [is] to be voted for" and for "any candidate, political committee, or other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution" from a corporation. 2 U.S.C. § 441b; see also 11 C.F.R. § 114.2(b). "[T]he provision of any goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a contribution." 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(1). Any expenditure that is "coordinated" is an "in-kind contribution to … the candidate … with whom or with which it was coordinated."
The facts demonstrate that WWE made expenditures in connection with an election, in clear violation of FECA. WWE expended its corporate resources – including the time of Mr. Zimmerman and other corporate personnel, and its attorneys – all used in the service of Ms. McMahon's campaign to force YouTube to remove only the videos that reflected poorly on Ms. McMahon, while ignoring the multitude of other WWE-owned material still hosted on YouTube. The speed at which WWE acted to have the videos removed once Ms. McMahon and her campaign came under criticism, and the incredibly selective nature of WWE's copyright claims, prove that the corporation's actions were solely in service of preventing further damage to Ms. McMahon's candidacy.
Given Ms. McMahon's long relationship with WWE, her husband's role as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, the fact that Ms. McMahon's family controls the company, and the speed at which WWE acted, WWE's efforts on behalf of Ms. McMahon were surely coordinated with her or her campaign. Accordingly, WWE made, and Ms. McMahon and her campaign committee accepted, prohibited in-kind corporate contributions in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441b.
C. REQUESTED ACTION
Respondents have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by making and accepting illegal in-kind corporate contributions. We request that the Commission investigate these violations, enjoin Respondents from further violations, and assign the maximum fines permitted by law.
Sincerely,
_______________________
Nancy DiNardo
State Party Chairwoman
Connecticut Democratic Party
330 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06106,
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of ___________, 2009.
_______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
___________________________________________
Sorry for the long ass read but I just copied it all from the site, though it would interest a few people on here.
