DiNardo: Linda Ads Violate Law

From Dem Party Chair Nancy DiNardo:

CORPORATE WWE CAMPAIGN BROADCAST AD VIOLATES EXISTING FEDERAL ELECTION LAW

DiNARDO CITES LAW, WRITES STATIONS TO PULL AD

(HARTFORD, CT) – Democratic State Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo today sent a letter to broadcast stations in Connecticut requesting that they immediately pull an ad prominently featuring Linda McMahon’s likeness, paid for by the WWE.

“Linda McMahon’s enlisting the WWE corporation to reinforce her $50 million political campaign with an aggressive PR operation has McMahon flagrantly violating existing election law,” said DiNardo. “While McMahon’s profits before people attitude seems to have left her with the impression that she doesn’t have to play by the rules, we hope and expect that Connecticut broadcast stations will immediately pull this ad from their rotations.”

In the letter, DiNardo tells the stations:

“I am writing to request that you immediately remove from and decline to broadcast any commercial advertisements from World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (‘WWE’) that feature the likeness of Linda McMahon. At least one such advertisement is now running in Connecticut. These commercials irrefutably constitute coordination between WWE and the Linda McMahon for Senate campaign in direct violation of federal law.

“So long as WWE’s television advertisement features the image of Linda McMahon, it is a clear violation of current federal law. We request that you remove it from any current broadcasts and refuse to rebroadcast it in the future.”

TEXT OF THE LETTER FOLLOWS:

October 21, 2010

Dear Sir or Madam:

As Chairwoman of the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee, I am writing to request that you immediately remove from and decline to broadcast any commercial advertisements from World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“WWE”) that feature the likeness of Linda McMahon. At least one such advertisement is now running in Connecticut.[i] These commercials irrefutably constitute coordination between WWE and the Linda McMahon for Senate campaign in direct violation of federal law.

Analysis

Coordination between a corporate entity and a political campaign is illegal.[ii] Under the current rules governing commercial communications and coordination with campaigns, a communication is coordinated when it is (a) paid for, in whole or in part, by a person other than the candidate, authorized committee, or political party committee, (b) satisfies one of the content standards, and (c) satisfies one of the conduct standards:[iii]

(a) Paid for … by a person other than the candidate. Since the advertisement has been produced and paid for by WWE, it clearly meets this standard.

(b) Satisfies a content standard. The advertisement satisfies the “electioneering communication” content standard, [iv] because (1) it has been “publicly distributed within 60 days before a general election for the office sought” by Linda McMahon; (2) Linda McMahon’s image appears in the ad;[v] and (3) the advertisement is airing on Connecticut television.[vi] 

(c) Satisfies one a conduct standard. The advertisement satisfies a regulatory conduct standard because the communication was “created, produced, or distributed” by WWE and Linda McMahon for Senate has “assent[ed]” to its use of the candidate’s likeness.[vii] It is highly likely that Linda McMahon was directly involved with WWE’s decision to use her image in this commercial. However, proof of Linda McMahon’s direct involvement is not necessary to prove the illegality of the advertisement. McMahon’s obvious complicity in the use of her likeness in the ad is sufficient to satisfy this standard – federal regulations clearly state that “assent” can be found “whether or not there is agreement or formal collaboration” between Linda McMahon for Senate and the WWE.[viii]

Conclusion

So long as WWE’s television advertisement features the image of Linda McMahon, it is a clear violation of current federal law. We request that you remove it from any current broadcasts and refuse to rebroadcast it in the future.

0
Share

3 comments

  1. Is this really any different than Paul Ganim and his family law firm prominently positioning Paul on billboards about their probate expertise???

    It’s a free speech issue!!!

    0

Leave a Reply