McMAHON’S LIES AND FALSE ATTACKS vs. THE FACTS:McMahon’s Latest Ad Continues to Try to Hide Her Extreme Right Wing Agenda and Record At WWE From Connecticut Voters

FACT: McMahon Continues to Use False, Negative Ads Filled With Lies to Hide Her Extreme Right Wing Agenda, And Record of Hurting Others to Help Herself, While She Avoids the Issues

McMahon “Is The Only Major Senate Candidate To Decline A One-Hour Live Interview On WNPR's ‘Where We Vote’ Series During The Primary And General Election Campaigns.” [Connecticut Mirror, 9/24/12]

Headline: “McMahon Ducks Issues, Calls Survey 'Senseless Exercise'”

[Connecticut Mirror, 9/24/12]

McMahon Refused To Say How She Would Have Voted On A CT Mirror Key Issues Survey. “McMahon wouldn't say in an interview, and her campaign declined a request by The Mirror to say how she would have voted on a key issues index published in the 2012 and 2010 editions of ‘The Almanac of American Politics.’ As she approaches the final 40 days of her second run for U.S. Senate in two years, the Republican nominee remains elusive on specific legislation that would allow voters to judge her…” [Connecticut Mirror, 9/24/12]

McMahon Said She Had To “Look At The Question Again” When Asked About Supporting The Ledbetter Act On Pay Discrimination. “On the Ledbetter Act [which extends the statute of limitations in pay discrimination cases], [McMahon] said, ‘I'm not trying to dodge you, I'd like to look at the question again.’” [Connecticut Mirror, 9/24/12]

Journal Inquirer’s Chris Powell: McMahon’s Campaign “Misleading Propaganda,” “Most Grotesque and Shameful Hypocrisy.”Wrote the managing editor of the Journal Inquirer, “What's left of the political class in Connecticut seems awestruck by the unceasing barrage of misleading propaganda fueled by the infinite money of Linda McMahon's campaign for the U.S. Senate -- not just awestruck but dumbstruck. So every week McMahon gets away with the most grotesque and shameless hypocrisy.” [Chris Powell, Journal Inquirer, 9/12/12]

Hartford Courant Editorial: McMahon “Makes No Apologies…For Clearly Being Out Of Her Own Interests.”  McMahon “minimizes her own [vulnerabilities] — lax drug policies and degrading imagery at the company she and her husband own — as byproducts of the entertainment business. The unflappable Mrs. McMahon makes no apologies for a fortune earned from fake fights in a bawdy ring. Or for clearly being out for her own interests — lower taxes and less regulation — which, she would argue, Calvin Coolidge-style, are good for creating jobs in the worst times since the Great Depression...But she doesn't have Mr. Blumenthal's depth or breath of knowledge on essential matters such as foreign affairs and the law. She has avoided straight talk on issues such as Social Security, which isn't sustainable on its current path. (Mr. Blumenthal also avoids straight talk by saying Social Security ‘seems to be financially on strong ground right now’ and opposing ‘any reduction in the present Social Security commitment.’) She has a spotty history of voting in elections.” [Editorial, Hartford Courant, 10/24/10]

“McMahons Have Become Known For Hard-Nosed Tactics And Have Been Accused Of Putting Profits Ahead Of The Well-Being Of The Wrestlers.”  On July 16, 2010, the New York Timesreported that “over the past quarter century, Vince and Linda E. McMahon have built the W.W.E. from a small regional operation into a $1.2 billion empire operating in 145 countries. But along the way, the McMahons have become known for hard-nosed tactics and have been accused of putting profits ahead of the well-being of the wrestlers who attract millions of fans with their daredevil stunts and cartoonishly sculpted physiques.” [New York Times7/16/10]

McMahon Called Financial Reform “Ridiculous,” An “Overreaching By The Government,” And Said It Would Put “Regulation In Place That We Just Don’t Need.” “Linda McMahon is a petite and friendly woman with that magnetic smile that political consultants crave. But when she starts talking about the Democrats’ financial reform package, she gets a bit of an edge in her voice. ‘It’s 2,300 pages. It’s just, I think, ridiculous,’ she said in an interview with The Daily Caller. ‘It’s overreaching by the government…It’s putting regulation in place that we just don’t need. And it’s just a typical government solution.’” [Daily Caller, 7/11/10]

New York Times Editorial: McMahon Made “Lots Of Money By Running…A Noisy, Demeaning Business” And “Her Policy Positions, When You Can Discern Them, Are Remixes Of Failed Trickle-Down ideas.” “We have larger concerns with the Republican, Linda McMahon. She made her name and lots of money by running World Wrestling Entertainment, a noisy, demeaning business. Her policy positions, when you can discern them, are remixes of failed trickle-down ideas. She has aligned herself with groups that oppose the minimum wage — even though she now says she would not cut this meager safety net. She essentially expects voters to take it on faith that she will do as well in government as she did in spectacle wrestling. She is ready to spend as much as $50 million of her own money to win the race, but she does not seem ready to take on the issues of war, the economy, public welfare and justice in Washington.” [Editorial, New York Times, 10/13/10]

 

FALSE ATTACK:McMahon Claims “McMahon Demeans Women” Ad Has False Charges

 

 

FACT: EVERYTHING IN THAT AD IS TRUE, AND McMAHON HAS OFFERED NO EVIDENCE TO DISPUTE ANY OF IT

Linda McMahon’s only response to the ad “McMahon Demeans Women” was to put out a press release from her campaign manager (who was registered to vote in Washington D.C. instead of Connecticut until January) decrying inside-the-beltway Washington D.C. politics and falsely claiming that the real Connecticut women in the ad talking about Linda McMahon’s record and right wing political agenda were paid actors. The Murphy campaign released a 19-page document supporting in depth all of the charges about Linda McMahon’s record and right wing political agenda that are presented in the ad. Linda McMahon did not provide a single piece of evidence or a single fact to counter these charges. Instead, she continued her efforts to try to distract voters from the issues, at any cost.

 

ATTACK:McMahon Complains About She’s Being Called Anti-Woman

 

FACT: McMahon’s Extreme Right Wing, Anti-Choice Position Has In Fact Been Criticized By Pro-Choice Advocates and Women’s Groups

 McMahon’s Views Called “Extremist Anti-Choice Policy.” Reported the New Haven Register, Executive Director of NARAL-Pro Choice Connecticut Christian “Miron said McMahon’s views on the Blunt Amendment are out of touch with “the state’s values.” He called them an “extremist anti-choice policy.”” [New Haven Register, 9/10/12]

Headline: “NARAL criticizes McMahon on Blunt Amendment stance” [New Haven Register, 9/10/12]

Headline: “NARAL Blasts McMahon” [New Haven Independent, 9/10/12]

NARAL Criticized McMahon’s Support Amendment Allowing Employers to Opt Out of Covering Birth Control in Insurance Plans. Reported the New Haven Register, “NARAL-Pro-Choice Connecticut Monday criticized Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon, who is pro-choice, for her support of the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed any employer, not just religious institutions, to opt out of contraceptive coverage for employees on moral grounds. The amendment also greatly expanded the conscience exemption and extended it to any health service mandated by the 2010 health reform act, commonly referred to as Obamacare.” [New Haven Register, 9/10/12]

Pro-Choice Advocates “Questioned Whether Linda McMahon Really Favors Abortion Rights and Said She Wants to Make it Harder for Women to Access Birth Control.” Reported the Hartford Courant, “Supporters of Congressman Chris Murphy and leaders of two prominent pro-choice groups Thursday questioned whether Linda McMahon really favors abortion rights and said she wants to make it harder for women to access birth control and other health necessities. "Linda McMahon says she's pro-choice," said Shannon Lane, a board member for NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut. "The evidence does not support that fact."” [Hartford Courant, 9/13/12]

McMahon Questioned For Her Support of “Failed Bill That Would Have Allowed Any Employer With Moral Objections to Deny the Coverage of Birth Control.” Reported the Hartford Courant, “During a brief press conference in front of the state Capitol, speakers said McMahon wants to turn the clock back to the 1950s, and they said she would not fight for women the way Murphy would. The speakers criticized McMahon for not supporting the president's health care law, which includes several provisions that benefit women, and they said they were upset that McMahon said she would support a funding cut for Planned Parenthood. In addition, the speakers said they were disappointed that McMahon said she would support the Blunt Amendment, a failed bill that would have allowed any employer with moral objections to deny the coverage of birth control.” [Hartford Courant, 9/13/12]

McMahon Attacked “Over Her Support of a Bill That Would Have Allowed Employers to Cover Contraception for Their Employees.” Reported the New Haven Independent, “Women’s reproductive rights took center stage in the U.S. Senate race Monday, as a pro-choice group took aim at Republican candidate Linda McMahon over her support of a bill that would have allowed employers to refuse to cover contraception for their employees.” [New Haven Independent, 9/10/12]

McMahon Attacked for her Support For Bill to Allow “Employers to Refuse to Cover Contraception Costs As Part of Employee Health Plans.” Reported the New Haven Independent, “In a Monday afternoon conference call hosted by Christian Miron, the director of the NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut, the state branch of the national pro-choice advocacy organization. Miron scored McMahon for saying she would have supported the Blunt amendment. The failed U.S. Senate bill would have allowed employers to refuse to cover contraception costs as part of employee health plans, based on moral or religious grounds. Miron called it an “extremist” proposal, and said that McMahon’s support shows that she “cannot be trusted” to protect access to reproductive health care. “A vote for Linda McMahon is a vote against reproductive rights and access” to women’s health care, Miron said. On the issue of a woman’s right to choose, McMahon has “intentionally left her position vague,” Miron said. The only times that she has talked about reproductive freedom, it has been to espouse “extremist anti-choice policies,” he said.” [New Haven Independent,9/10/12]

Susan Bigelow Op-Ed: McMahon Morphed From “Likable, Theoretically Moderate Businesswoman Into A Boilerplate Republican” Pushing The Blunt Amendment. In a March 2012 op-ed, author and former owner of CTLocalPolitics Susan Bigelow wrote, “At some point over the past year Linda McMahon has morphed from a likable, theoretically moderate businesswoman into a boilerplate Republican ... embracing an amendment that would have set back women’s access to contraception and other necessary health care by decades.”  [Susan Bigelow op-ed, CT New Junkie blog, 3/15/12]

Susan Bigelow Op-Ed: McMahon Said She Would “Probably” Have Supported BluntAmendment, Although She Had Previously Tried To Stay Out Of The Debate. In a March 2012 op-ed, author and former owner of CTLocalPolitics Susan Bigelow wrote, “McMahon was asked about contraception and the controversial Blunt Amendment, which if passed would have given employers to opt-out of covering certain health service, such as birth control, that they had moral objections to. McMahon had previously limited her participation in the birth control debate to criticizing the president’s policy requiring Catholic hospitals to cover contraception for their employees, but on Wednesday she said she “probably” would have supported the Blunt Amendment, though she “wouldn’t have raced to do it.” That sound you’re hearing is McMahon’s women’s outreach advisers smacking their hands against their foreheads, and money pouring into Democratic coffers.”  [Susan Bigelow op-ed, CT New Junkie blog, 3/15/12]

 

ATTACK:McMahon Says Voters Should “Take a Look” At her, Because She’s a Woman

 

FACT: UNDER LINDA McMAHON, WWE PROGRAMMING DEMEANED AND DEGRADED WOMEN, PROMOTED VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

FACT: CONNECTICUT NEWSPAPERS REPORT THAT UNDER McMAHON, WWE FEATURED MISOGYNISTIC STORYLINES WHERE MEN BEAT WOMEN AND DEGRADED WOMEN

Norwich Bulletin: McMahon’s Business “Exploits And Degrades Women, Glorifies Violence And Is Riddled With Drug Scandals.”“McMahon’s campaign is based on her successful business career, the former CEO of a sleazy ‘entertainment’ business that exploits and degrades women, glorifies violence and is riddled with drug scandals. She refuses to deal with that honestly, instead dismissing it as ‘just a soap opera.’ When people die, it’s not just a soap opera.” [Editorial, Norwich Bulletin, 8/1/10]

The DayEditorial: McMahon’s Marketed “Storylines” Where “Men Have Beaten Women To Put Them In Their Place” And “She Provides Few Details” On Her Policy Positions. “Meanwhile, his Republican opponent, Linda McMahon, got rich presenting a product - professional wrestling - that appeals to base instincts. Muscle-bound good and bad wrestlers act out soap-opera like storylines about revenge and betrayal. Unfortunately, the message it sends to kids is that violence is fun and without serious consequences, and that bullying is a means to get your way. More troubling is that in some of these storylines men have beaten women to put them in their place, to the delight of the adolescent, largely male audiences.‘We've sometimes pushed the envelope,’ explains Ms. McMahon, saying the WWE has toned down its act to PG. At least until after Nov. 2, we suspect.The choice in this election is obvious. Until her sudden interest in being a senator, Ms. McMahon often didn't bother to vote.The Connecticut Republican Party should forever be embarrassed it selected Ms. McMahon for this race over Rob Simmons, a former congressman, decorated veteran and party loyalist, and for one reason only - she had money…The central theme of Ms. McMahon's campaign is that she will use her business sense to attack deficit spending, yet she provides few details. In fact, she refuses to talk about reforming Medicare and Social Security, the entitlement programs that will play the largest role in driving deficits in the long term.”[Editorial, The Day, 10/23/10]

Providence Journal Editorial: McMahon Is “Utterly Unacceptable” Because Her “Business Lives Off Performance-Enhancing Drugs, Violence And The Exploitation Of Young People.” “Whatever you think of Connecticut Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal, one thing is clear: His opponent in his state’s U.S. senatorial race, Linda McMahon, is utterly unacceptable, and Mr. Blumenthal would far better serve Connecticut and New England in the Senate…Ms. McMahon and her husband made a fortune from World Wrestling Entertainment. We normally enthusiastically give extra points to candidates who have done well in the private sector. But Ms. McMahon’s business lives off performance-enhancing drugs, violence and the exploitation of young people. It also exploits the wrestlers, denying them health coverage, as the owners profit off their high-risk performances. Ms. McMahon did more than merely occupy a ring-side seat for the degradation of American culture. She took part in the action, kicking a man in the groin for its entertainment value. Her husband went in the ring and told a woman to take her clothes off and bark like a dog. Their yacht is called ‘Sexy Bitch.’ So much for the ‘nice lady’ posing in the very pricey campaign ads with cropped blond hair and a tweed sweater.” [Editorial, Providence Journal, 10/5/10]

Journal Inquirer Editorial: “More And More Republicans Are Turned Off By The U.S. Senate Campaign Of Linda McMahon,” Which Was Funded With “Millions Of Dollars Raised By Piping Violence And Pornography Into People’s Homes.” On July 17, 2010, the Journal Inquirer editorialized, “More and more Republicans are turned off by the U.S. Senate campaign of Linda McMahon. It is a cynical campaign of no substance and some Republicans are getting the sinking feeling that they have been had: She is buying a nomination for a hallowed office. Moreover, she is buying it with blood money — millions of dollars raised by piping violence and pornography into people’s homes through their TV sets. The WWE is not ‘family values,’ Grand Old Party values, or any kind of values……Which is why so many Republicans these days are saying: ‘I wish Rob were still in it.’” [Editorial, Journal Inquirer (North Central Connecticut), 7/17/10]

FACT: EVEN REPUBLICANS ARGUED THAT WWE CONTENT UNDER McMAHON WAS DEMEANING TO WOMEN

Shays: McMahon’s Business, WWE, “Has A War On Women.”In a June 2012 debate against Linda McMahon, Shays said, “I do think her business has a war on women. I think when you force a woman to kiss the rear end of her husband on stage in front of young kids I think that's a war on women. I think when you force a woman to take off all her clothes in an arena and get down on the ground and bark like a dog, I think that's assault on women.”  [NECN, 6/14/12]

Republican Rob Simmons: “And The Violence Against Women That Is Supposed To Be Entertainment Or Soap Opera. I Don’t Find It Entertaining And I Don’t Think It’s Soap Opera.”  “I really can’t tell you if there are going to be any more disclosures, there have been so many already that, you know, it would seem to me that people can form a reasonable judgment. You know, there was the problem with the resume and what her degree was. The problem with filling out forms to become a member of the state Board of Education where six of the questions were not properly answered.  An indictment some years ago, a Congressional investigation, sexual abuse against ring boys, beating up a down syndrome wrestler – a film that I found almost impossible to watch and I would say that if any family in the state of Connecticut has had anybody in their family with physical or mental handicaps you are going to be very concerned about looking at some of that imagery. And the violence against women that is supposed to be entertainment or soap opera. I don’t find it entertaining and I don’t think it’s soap opera. But that’s for the voter to decide.” [WNPR, 8/3/2010] audio

Republican Rob Simmons: WWE Promotes “Ugly Behaviors” As “Soap Opera.” “Well I think it makes those two women look a little bit like airheads,” said Simmons. “Look, I’m like you. Back in the days when I was a kid, I saw Haystack Calhoun wrestle in New London. It was a lot of fun, it was a carnival show. But when you see a Down syndrome wrestler being beat up and abused, and his head being pushed in the toilet by Mrs. McMahon’s husband and son, that’s not funny. And that ad simply ridicules some of the ugly behaviors that they’ve promoted as soap opera. It’s not soap opera. It’s ugly, it shouldn’t be marketed to our children.” [Hardball, 8/5/2010] video

Republican Chris Shays Said McMahon Ran WWE When Her Husband Vince “Pulls Down His Pants And Makes Someone Kiss It. Has Somebody Literally Strip In Front Of Adults And Kids.”In July 2012, Shays said of McMahon, “Her record was running the WWE when Vince McMahon her husband pulls down his pants and makes someone kiss it. Has somebody literally strip in front of adults and kids. That stuns me.”  [CT News Junkie blog, 7/19/12]

Chairman Of Manchester Republican Town Committee: McMahon Made “Her Money By Selling Sex And Violence To Kids.” Heath Fable, the chairman of the Manchester Republican Town Committee wrote to the Journal Inquirer in May 2010. He wrote, “Simmons is running against former WWE executive Linda McMahon . She has been a newcomer on the scene, spending millions of dollars to get herself noticed statewide. My concern with her candidacy isn’t just about McMahon making her money by selling sex and violence to kids. It is the fact that she’s offered no new policy ideas, no new themes, and no new messages. It’s all the same old poll-driven, focus-group tested, boilerplate rhetoric. Her candidacy is like her wrestling: It’s fake.  We don’t have to tolerate fake candidates when we’ve got real ones like Simmons. I hope everyone sees through the show and supports Simmons for the U.S. Senate.” [Heath Fahle, Journal Inquirer, 5/21/10]

FACT: McMAHON SUPPORTED CONTENT THAT DEGRADED WOMEN

McMahon Said She Would Not Oppose Content That Degraded Women Because She Said She Believed “In The First Amendment And Content.” “‘As a senator,’ Amanpour asked, ‘if you could stop it would you stop that kind of depiction against women on the public airwaves? Would you at least lobby or campaign against it?’ ‘I do believe in the first amendment rights and content --’ McMahon said. ‘So, you don't think there's anything wrong with it?’ Amanpour interjected. ‘Well, content providers are clearly creating scenarios ... from an entertainment point of view, I think that you either elect to go to a movie or you elect to watch a program so, I'm a strong proponent for first amendment rights,’ she said.” [This Week, ABC News, 10/10/10]

McMahon Said That She Was “Incredibly Proud” Of WWE Including Its Explicit Programming. During the WTNH/The Day debate, Mark Davis asked a question from a voter, “Ms. McMahon—how can you possibly defend the total and disgusting degradation of women on World Wrestling? You seem to have amassed a fortune in a very sleazy business.” McMahon responded, “Let me just say that I am incredibly proud of the company that I have helped build from the ground up, a company that over the last two to three decades has evolved from just a traveling road show to a corporate citizen that it is today, traded on the New York stock exchange under the symbol WWE and seen around the world. The programming content of WWE, as has the company, has evolved from TV 14 to TV PG, as is rated by the networks on which it plays and I am very happy and much more contented today with the content that is part of the WWE soap opera. I think there were times we pushed the envelope.”[WTNH/The Day Debate, 10/12/10, VIDEO]

FACT: WWE PARTNERED WITH “GIRLS GONE WILD” FOR LIVE PAY-PER-VIEW EVENT IN 2003

Politico Headline: “Linda McMahon's WWE Teamed With Porn Show.” “World Wrestling Entertainment, the company where Connecticut Republican Senate hopeful Linda McMahon served as CEO for years, once teamed up with the ‘Girls Gone Wild’ enterprise for a pay-per-view event featuring the raunchy, partly-nude show and some of the WWE’s wrestling personalities. The 2003 event is another chapter in WWE’s checkered history that has raised eyebrows as McMahon has pursued her self-funded campaign against Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal, a contest that the latest polls have shown in a dead heat.” [Politico, 10/2/10]

FACT: LINDA McMAHON HAS MADE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM WWE

Linda And Vince McMahon Made $182 Million In Dividend Income From WWE Between 2005 And 2009. In May 2010, the Journal Inquirerreported that, “WWE’s proxy statements show that the McMahons already have earned about $45 million in quarterly dividend payments in both 2006 and 2007 and about $46 million in both 2008 and 2009. That adds up to approximately $182 million over the four-year period, or $193 million if the June payment is included.” [Journal Inquirer5/11/2010]

  • Linda and Vince McMahon Make $11.4 Million Per Quarter in Dividends At the WWE Totaling $193 Million In Only Four Years, Including 2010. “Moreover, WWE’s proxy statements show that the McMahons already have earned about $45 million in quarterly dividend payments in both 2006 and 2007 and about $46 million in both 2008 and 2009.  That adds up to approximately $182 million over the four-year period.” The McMahons received $11.4 million in dividends in June 2010, bringing their total over the last four years to $193 million. Robert Zimmerman, WWE’s vice president for public relations and corporate communications, confirmed those numbers to the Journal Inquirer in May 2010.  [Journal Inquirer, (North-Central Connecticut), 5/11/10]

McMahons Have Earned About $45 Million in Quarterly Dividend Payments in Both 2006 and 2007 and About $46 Million in Both 2008 and 2009, Totaling $193 Million In Only Four Years, Including 2010.“Moreover, WWE’s proxy statements show that the McMahons already have earned about $45 million in quarterly dividend payments in both 2006 and 2007 and about $46 million in both 2008 and 2009.  That adds up to approximately $182 million over the four-year period, or $193 million if the June payment is included.” Robert Zimmerman, WWE’s vice president for public relations and corporate communications, confirmed those numbers to the Journal Inquirer in May 2010.  [Journal Inquirer, (North-Central Connecticut), 5/11/10]

 

LIES:McMahon Tries to Claim She’s Pro-Choice

 

FACT: McMahon Backed Right-Wing, Anti-Choice Blunt Amendment

McMahon Backs Amendment Allowing Employers to Deny Birth Control Coverage.Reported The Day, “McMahon also supports the "Blunt amendment," which would allow employers with moral objections to opt out of providing their workers services in the 2010 Affordable Care Act, such as birth control.” [The Day, 9/17/12]

McMahon Said She’d Vote for Blunt Amendment to “Vastly Expand the Ability of Employers to Deny Birth-Control Coverage on Moral Grounds.” Reported the Connecticut Mirror, “McMahon said she would have voted for the Blunt Amendment, a failed effort earlier this year by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., to vastly expand the ability of employers to deny birth-control coverage on moral grounds. "This would make birth control less accessible, more expensive and, quite frankly, out of reach for many American women," [Connecticut NARAL Board Member Shannon] Lane said.  "Choosing to make it harder for women to access birth control does not make you pro-choice." [Connecticut Mirror, 9/13/12]

McMahon Supported Measure to Let Employers “Opt-Out of Providing Insurance Coverage for Birth Control.” Reported the Hearst Connecticut Media Group, “Linda McMahon is catching hell from the political left over her albeit somewhat reluctant support for a failed Senate amendment that would have given employers the latitude to opt-out of providing insurance coverage for birth control as part of their health care plans. Among the groups that have publicly called out McMahon is NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut, which organized a conference call with reporters Monday in which the group’s executive director, Christian Miron, slammed the Republican candidate. “What we’re hearing from women around the state is they don’t trust Linda McMahon,” Miron told members of the media.” [Hearst Connecticut Media Group, 9/10/12]

McMahon Didn’t Care About Birth Control Implications Of Her Support for Blunt Amendment. Reported the Hartford Courant, “McMahon would have "reluctantly" voted for the Blunt amendment, Abrajano said, "but not because it had anything to do with birth control. For Linda, it was more about religious freedom and overregulation of business. The Blunt amendment would have alleviated those two concerns for her.” [Hartford Courant, 9/9/12]

Right-Wing Anti-Choice Group Praised McMahon For “Thinking Creatively” In Taking Positions on Choice. Reported the Connecticut Mirror, speaking “"Linda McMahon is someone who thinks creatively on these issues," said Peter Wolfgang, the executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, which opposes abortion and gay marriage.” Wolfgang was speaking about McMahon’s positions on choice issues. [Connecticut Mirror, 9/13/12]

NARAL Board Member Said McMahon’s Pro-Choice Rhetoric Was False. Reported the Connecticut Mirror, “"I'm here today because Linda McMahon is telling the women of Connecticut that she is pro-choice, and the evidence does not back up that fact," said Shannon Lane, a Connecticut NARAL board member.” [Connecticut Mirror, 9/13/12]

FACT: McMahon Suggested Women Go To Planned Parenthood For Birth Control, At Least Until She De-Funds It

 McMahon Spokesperson Suggested Women Get Contraception At Planned Parenthood Instead. Reported the New Haven Independent, “The Blunt amendment wouldn’t deny women birth control, Abrajano argued. “There are plenty of other opportunities for women to get birth control,” he said. It’s available, for example, at Planned Parenthood for about “4 dollars,” he said. “Linda is not opposed to birth control,” Abrajano said. She just thinks that the federal government shouldn’t force employers to provide it, he said. “Those are not mutually exclusive.”” [New Haven Independent, 9/10/12]

McMahon Said She Would Vote to Defund Some of Planned Parenthood. Reported the Hearst Connecticut Media Group, “McMahon opposes federal funding for abortions, but said that Planned Parenthood is a valuable resource for many women. "I've said that I would not vote to defund all of it," McMahon said, declining to be more specific.” [Hearst Connecticut Media Group, 9/10/12]

FACT: BLUNT AMENDMENT BACKED BY RIGHT-WING ANTI-ABORTION GROUPS

Blunt Amendment Was “Favored By Conservatives” Including Rick Santorum Who Practiced “Hard-Edged Social Conservatism.” From a New York Times article on the Blunt Amendment: “Either way, Mitt Romney created a new tempest when he told an Ohio news station that he was opposed to a Senate amendment, favored by conservatives and under debate in Congress on Wednesday, that would allow employers and insurers to limit coverage of contraceptives if they have religious or moral objections. … Mr. Romney seemed to be further distancing himself from the hard-edged social conservatism of his chief Republican rival, Rick Santorum, who has argued that contraception is damaging to society.” [New York Times, 3/1/12]

National Right To Life Committee Supported Blunt Amendment. “The National Right to Life Committee has sent every member of the U.S. Senate a letter urging lawmakers to support the Blunt Amendment that would mitigate the damaging effects of the new Obama mandate.” [LifeNews.com, 2/14/12]

Susan B. Anthony List Criticized Senate Rejection Of Blunt Amendment. “Meanwhile, the Susan B. Anthony List is also on board with support for the Blunt Amendment. ‘Contact your Senators immediately and ask them to vote for the Blunt Amendment #1520 which will reverse the President’s mandate,’ SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser told her membership in an urgent email.” [LifeNews.com, 2/14/12]

Family Research Council Action Slammed Senate Rejection Of Blunt Amendment. “Family Research Council Action (FRC Action), the legislative advocacy arm of the Family Research Council, criticized the U.S. Senate vote today against Senator Roy Blunt’s ‘Respect for the Rights of Conscience Act of 2011’ amendment.” [Cloakroom blog, Family Research Council Action, 3/1/12]

FACT: Blunt Amendment Pushed By Right-Wing Tea Party Republicans and Social Conservatives

New York Times: Blunt Amendment Was “Championed By Leading Social Conservatives.”“The episode began when Mr. Romney was asked about his view of the sweeping amendment, sponsored by Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, that would permit employers and insurers to refuse to offer health coverage that violated their beliefs. The bill has been championed by leading social conservatives, who describe President Obama's effort to require religiously affiliated institutions, like hospitals or universities, to offer contraceptive coverage as an assault on religious liberty.” [New York Times, 3/1/12]

Headline of New York Times Blog Post On The Defeat Of The Blunt Amendment: “A Well-Deserved Defeat For The Religious Right.” [Andrew Rosenthal, Loyal Opposition Blog, New York Times, 3/1/12]

American Prospect’s Jamelle Bouie: Blunt Amendment Was A “Right-Wing Piece Of Legislation.” From a Jamelle Bouie blog post on the American Prospect website: “… the failed Blunt Amendment-which would have denied employees health coverage if their employer had a ‘conscience objection’-was a right-wing piece of legislation… ” [Tapped blog, American Prospect, 3/1/12]

New York Times’ Frank Bruni Equated Support For Blunt Amendment To Kowtowing To Religious Conservatives. In his March 2012 column, Frank Bruni wrote: “Rare is the Republican of plausible national ambition who doesn't kowtow to religious conservatives, a spectacle on florid display during the Republican primaries, including last week, when Mitt Romney signaled support for the Blunt amendment just before Senate Democrats -- with an assist from Snowe -- defeated it.” [Frank Bruni column, New York Times, 3/4/12]

Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards: Blunt Amendment Was “So Out Of The Mainstream.” Cecile Richards statement on Blunt Amendment: “Sen. Roy Blunt’s proposal is so out of the mainstream, it would allow any business or corporation to deny any essential health care service they object to, including coverage for birth control.” [Planned Parenthood Press Release, 2/14/12]

Sen. Olympia Snowe On Her Vote Against The Blunt Amendment: “It’s Much Broader Than I Could Support.” From an article on the Blunt Amendment: “The U.S. Senate rejected a GOP amendment on Thursday that would have overridden President Obama's mandate that most employers, including religious nonprofits, and all insurers provide free contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs for women. The measure failed by a 51-48 vote. … But retiring Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine will not be voting with her party. ‘It's much broader than I could support,’ she told MSNBC just after announcing her decision not to seek reelection.” [Christian Post, 3/1/12]

 

LIES:McMahon Claims She Provided Health Benefits to Her Employees

 

 

FACT: McMAHON PUT PROFITS AHEAD OF PEOPLE AND REFUSED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF HUNDREDS OF HER EMPLOYEES

“McMahons Have Become Known For Hard-Nosed Tactics And Have Been Accused Of Putting Profits Ahead Of The Well-Being Of The Wrestlers.”  On July 16, 2010, the New York Times reported that “over the past quarter century, Vince and Linda E. McMahon have built the W.W.E. from a small regional operation into a $1.2 billion empire operating in 145 countries. But along the way, the McMahons have become known for hard-nosed tactics and have been accused of putting profits ahead of the well-being of the wrestlers who attract millions of fans with their daredevil stunts and cartoonishly sculpted physiques.” [New York Times7/16/10]

Vince McMahon On Why The WWE Offers Rehab To Wrestlers: “Two Words: Public Relations.” During the Congressional investigation into steroids abuse in professional wrestling, Vince McMahon was asked, “what led you to make, you the company, to make the magnanimous gesture of offering counseling services to current or former employees or contractors?” McMahon answered, “Two words. Public relations. That's it. I do not feel any sense of responsibility for anyone of whatever their age is who has passed along and has bad habits and overdoses for drugs. Sorry, I don't feel any responsibility for that. Nonetheless, that's why we're doing it. It is a magnanimous gesture.” [Vince McMahon Testimony, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 12/14/07]

FACT: McMAHON REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY HEALTH INSURANCE AT ALL FOR HUNDREDS OF HER EMPLOYEES

WWE Had “Around 350 ‘Non-Talent’ Independent Contractors” Working For Them Throughout The United States. In September 2010, Brian Lockhart reported that “according to [WWE spokesman Robert] Zimmerman WWE at any given time also employs around 350 ‘non-talent’ independent contractors throughout the United States, including models, photographers and film unit publicists.” [Brian Lockhart, Political Capitol blog, Connecticut Post, 9/14/10]

Up to Forty Percent of Wrestlers May Lack Insurance.  In testimony delivered to Congressional investigators in 2007, Stephanie McMahon-Levesque has boasted that “more than sixty percent” of the company’s wrestlers have health insurance.  This claim suggests that as many as forty percent of the company’s performers lack health insurance. [Congressional Testimony of Stephanie Levesque, 12/14/07]

McMahons “Classify Their Wrestlers…As Independent Contractors, Rather Than Employees, Freeing The Company From Paying Health Insurance, Social Security And Medicare Contributions And Unemployment Insurance.” In July 2010, the New York Times reported that the McMahons “classify their wrestlers — they have some 140 or 150 under exclusive contract at any one time — as independent contractors, rather than employees, freeing the company from paying health insurance, Social Security and Medicare contributions and unemployment insurance. That means the wrestlers, many of whom experience injuries and long-term health problems, must find health insurance, and they have no automatic retirement benefits to lean on when they can no longer climb into the ring, according to industry experts.”[New York Times, 7/16/10]

CNN: McMahon Defended Not Providing Wrestlers With Health Care, Which “Could Pass The Costs Not Only To The Employees But Potentially On To Taxpayers,” Said It Was “Because WWE Is A Corporation.” During a report for CNN on October 6, 2010, Jessica Yellin noted that “at World Wrestling [McMahon’s] own wrestlers are employed as independent contractors. That means the company does not pay for their general comprehensive health insurance, only pays when they are injured in the ring. This could pass the costs not only to the employees but potentially on to taxpayers—so I asked her about this.” She asked McMahon, “As Senator, would you like to see all businesses adopt this process of hiring employees as independent contractors and letting them get their own health care? McMahon responded, “Certainly not.” Yellin asked, “Why not?” McMahon said, “Well, because WWE is a corporation. I think there is a clear difference. WWE performers live all over the country. They travel to the events where they are going. They work about three days a week. They are very well compensated for what they do.” [CNN 10/5/10, VIDEO]

WWE Was Under Investigation For Misclassifying Their Workers As Independent Contractors. “While U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon has been touting her business prowess building and running Stamford-based World Wrestling Entertainment, the state has been auditing the company to determine if WWE cut costs by improperly using independent contractors in and out of the ring… Federal and state officials have been cracking down on companies that misclassify regular employees as independent contractors, often to avoid paying Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes for those individuals.” [Stamford Advocate, 9/14/10]

Politico: “WWE’s Lack of Health Insurance” For Its Performers “Is At The Heart of the Wrestlers’ Grievances” With Linda McMahon. “WWE’s lack of health insurance is at the heart of the wrestlers’ grievances. They allege that McMahon and her husband, WWE Chairman Vince McMahon, ran a billion-dollar company that provided no health insurance for the wrestlers who put their bodies on the line to help turn the WWE into an international phenomenon. The issue is of no small concern for the former athletes, a number of whom are battling debilitating injuries or ailments related to their careers in the ring. As independent contractors, pro wrestlers are not offered health insurance or pensions from WWE, according to several of the former stars and industry experts.” [Politico, 12/7/09]

MCMAHON PUT PROFITS BEFORE PEOPLE BY ENDING STEROID AND DRUG TESTING PROGRAM BECAUSE IT WASN’T COST EFFECTIVE

McMahon Suspended Testing Program Because “It Was Not Cost Effective,” While “Steroid Use Was ‘Pervasive’ Among Wrestlers.” In June 2010, the New Haven Register reported that “In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in 1997, [Linda] McMahon said her company suspended its program in 1996 because there were so few positive tests — and because the company, then known as Titan Sports, was facing heated competition from Ted Turner’s World Championship Wrestling…McMahon said her husband suspended the program because ‘It was not cost effective, and again, there was a competitor not doing it, it was just not a level playing field.’” In July 2010, the New York Times reported that “damaging accusations grew out of a Congressional committee investigation in 2007 into professional wrestling, which concluded that steroid use was ‘pervasive’ among wrestlers and that the industry had refused to address the problem.” [NH Register, 6/10/2010; New York Times, 7/16/10]

McMahon Said She Was Involved In Decision To End Drug And Steroid Testing Program “From An Economic Standpoint.” During her testimony to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Linda McMahon was asked, “were you involved in the discussions leading up to the decision to eliminate the random drug testing policy?” She responded, “Yes, from an economic standpoint I do recall that.” [Linda Testimony, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 12/13/07]

At Least 9 Wrestlers Died Before The Age Of 40 As A result Of Steroid Or Drug Abuse After The WWE Suspended Its Testing Policy. “British Bulldog” Davey Boy Smith, Eddie Guerrero, “Flyin' Brian” Pillman, Louie "Spicolli" Mucciolo, “Quick Draw” Rick McGraw, “Strongman” Johnny Perry, Andrew “Test” Martin, Mike Lozanski, Edward “Umaga” Fatu, and “Mad Dog” Mike Bell, all were WWE (or its predecessor) wrestlers at one point and all passed away before the age of 40 of a myriad of conditions that have been directly associated with steroids abuse and illegal drug additions, such as heart attacks, enlarged hearts, overdoses and lung infections. With the exception of a death in 1985, the wrestlers’ deaths took place after the WWE suspended its illegal steroids and drug testing program in 1996.  Some deaths took place following its reinstatement. Lance McNaught, who wrestled as Lance Cade for the WWE, died at the age of 29 from apparent heart failure in August 2010. [Fox News,6/26/07; Sport Illustrated, 3/19/07; USA Today, “Wrestling List,” 3/12/04; AP,7/1/07; USA Today, 6/29/07; USA Today,  3/12/04; ESPN, 12/9/09; CNN, 12/5/09; L.A. Times, 12/19/08; Library Journal Reviews, 5/1/09; The Day (New London, CT), 8/26/10]

Congressional Investigation Found That WWE “Relaxed The [Steroid Testing] Policy To Allow Wrestlers Suspended For Steroid Abuse To Participate” In Events And That Chris Benoit Tested Positive For Steroids Three Times Without Penalty Before His Death. In January 2009, the chairman of the committee investigating illegal steroid use at WWE, Rep. Henry Waxman, released the findings of the committee. According to the report, “In the first year of the WWE's testing program, which began in March 2006, 40% of wrestlers tested positive for steroids and other drugs even after being warned in advance that they were going to be tested. Six months after the WWE announced its 2006 steroid testing policy, it relaxed the policy to allow wrestlers suspended for steroid abuse to participate in ‘selected televised events’ and ‘pay-per-views.’…The WWE regularly approved ‘therapeutic use exemptions,’ explicitly allowing the use of steroids as part of a ‘testosterone replacement acceptance program’ for wrestlers who abused steroids in the past.” In addition, “the Committee obtained information relating to the death of Chris Benoit. According to WV/E officials, Mr. Benoit was tested four times for steroids prior to his death.  He tested positive three times, but each time he received only a warning or no penalty at all. The Committee obtained no evidence that efforts were made to discourage his steroid abuse.” [House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Letter From Former Chair Henry Waxman to John Walters of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1/2/09]

·  Chris Benoit Tested Positive For Steroids Three Times Prior To His Death But Received No Penalty. At the conclusion of a Congressional investigation into the steroid abuse at the WWE, Congressman Henry Waxman wrote, “The Committee obtained information relating to the death of Chris Benoit. According to WWE officials, Mr. Benoit was tested four times for steroids prior to his death. He tested positive three times, but each time he received only a warning or no penalty at all. The Committee obtained no evidence that efforts were made to discourage his steroid abuse." [Waxman Letter, 1/2/2009]

  • WWE “Relaxed Rules” Of It’s Steroid Testing Program “To Allow Wrestlers To Finish Story Lines.” In July 2010, the New York Times reported that “The findings, from Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who was then the chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, was especially critical of the W.W.E., describing how, six months after announcing a steroid-testing policy, the company relaxed the rules to let wrestlers suspended for steroid use appear at W.W.E. pay-per-view events. The company said it did so merely to allow wrestlers to finish story lines that were under way, and later reinstated the policy. In an interview with the committee’s staff, Ms. McMahon was pressed to explain why the W.W.E. had abandoned another drug testing program in the 1990s. She told them the program was too costly, and few wrestlers were testing positive.” [New York Times, 7/16/10]
  • WWE Allowed Some Wrestlers To Use Steroids To Use Steroids If They Had Abused Steroids In The Past.At the conclusion of a Congressional investigation into the steroid abuse at the WWE, Congressman Henry Waxman wrote, “ “The WWE regularly approved ‘therapeutic use exemptions,’ explicitly allowing the use of steroids as part of a ‘testosterone replacement acceptance program’ for wrestlers who abused steroids in the past.” In her testimony before Congress, during the steroids investigation, Linda McMahon said that there were “two or three” wrestlers that were given use exemptions. [Waxman Letter, 1/2/09; Linda Testimony, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 12/13/07]

Vince McMahon On Why The WWE Offers Rehab To Wrestlers: “Two Words: Public Relations.” During the Congressional investigation into steroids abuse in professional wrestling, Vince McMahon was asked, “what led you to make, you the company, to make the magnanimous gesture of offering counseling services to current or former employees or contractors?” McMahon answered, “Two words. Public relations. That's it. I do not feel any sense of responsibility for anyone of whatever their age is who has passed along and has bad habits and overdoses for drugs. Sorry, I don't feel any responsibility for that. Nonetheless, that's why we're doing it. It is a magnanimous gesture.” [Vince McMahon Testimony, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 12/14/07]

McMAHON’S CONTRACTS EVEN INCLUDED DEATH AND INJURY CLAUSES TO PROTECT THE WWE’S BOTTOM LINE IF A WRESTLER IS KILLED OR INJURED IN THE RING, EVEN IF THE COMPANY IS AT FAULT

Linda McMahon’s Company’s Contracts With Wrestlers Included “Death Clauses” That Released Them From Liability Even If a Wrestler Died and WWE’s Negligence Caused the Death. “The father of a three-time champion wrestler for World Wrestling Entertainment Inc., the company owned and formerly headed by Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon, said Thursday that he was flabbergasted to learn after his son’s suicide that his contract with WWE contained a so-called ‘death clause.’…McMahon three years before personally had signed Hart’s booking contract with WWE — which included a death clause — on behalf of Titan Sports Inc., a corporate precursor of the WWE for which she served as president.” [Journal Inquirer, 9/3/10]

WWE Contracts Released WWE From Liability in the Event of Death in the Ring or Due to Injuries Sustained in the Ring, Even if the WWE Was Negligent. “WRESTLER, on behalf of himself and his heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, hereby releases, waives and discharges PROMOTER from all liability to WRESTLER and covenants not to sue PROMOTER for any and all loss or damage on account of injury to any person or property or resulting in serious or permanent injury to WRESTLER or WRESTLER’s death, whether caused by the negligence of the PROMOTER, other wrestlers or otherwise.” [World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. Booking Contract with Scott Levy, p.15, 8/27/00; with Michael Sanders, p.15, 7/27/01; with Chris Klucsarits, p.15, 3/25/02; with Owen Hart, p 13, 7/1/96]

Linda McMahon Signed Owen Hart’s Contract, Which Included The “Death Clause.” World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. Booking Contract with Owen Hart, p 19, 7/1/96]

McMahon’s Campaign Claimed That The WWE “Never Exercised That Option.” “McMahon’s campaign spokesman said that while such clauses — which ostensibly release WWE from liability in the event of a wrestler’s death in the ring or due to injuries sustained there, even if the company is negligent — are part of its talent contracts, WWE has ‘never exercised that option.’” [The Journal-Inquirer, 9/3/10]

“Not True That World Wrestling Entertainment Has Never Invoked” Death Clause. “It is not true that World Wrestling Entertainment has never invoked a clause in its wrestlers’ contracts absolving the company of liability in an injury or death, according to a Yale Law School professor. In fact, WWE invoked the so-called ‘death clause’ in a countersuit against Martha Hart, whose husband, Owen Hart, fell 78 feet to his death from a harness in May 1999, Robert Solomon said.” [New Haven Register, 9/7/10]

Wrestlers’ Contracts Could Be Terminated By The WWF If They Were Unable To Perform For 6 Consecutive Weeks “Due To An Injury Suffered In The Ring While Performing Services At Promoter’s Direction.” Scott Levy’s contract with World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, which he signed in August 2002, included the following clause: “In the event that WRESTLER is unable to wrestle for six (6) consecutive weeks during the Term of this Agreement due to an injury suffered in the ring while performing services at PROMOTER’s direction, PROMOTER shall have the right to thereafter terminate this agreement or suspend WRESTLER without pay.” Michael Sanders’ contract, which was dated July 27, 2001, included the same clause. Wresltler Chris Klucsarits’ contract, which was dated March 25, 2002, included the same clause but was allowed a period of eight weeks of being injured before his contract could be terminated. [World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. Booking Contract with Scott Levy, p.17, 8/27/00; World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. Booking Contract with Michael Sanders, p.16, 7/27/01; World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. Booking Contract with Chris Klucsarits, p.16, 3/25/02]

Owen Hart’s Contract, Which Was Signed By Linda McMahon, Could Be Terminated By The WWF If He Was Injured For More Than 90 Days. “In the event that the WRESTLER is injured or otherwise becomes disabled during the term of this Agreement, and is thus unable to perform services under this Agreement for more than ninety (90) days from the date of this injury or disability, PROMOTER shall have the option to suspend or terminate this Agreement. Further, if this Agreement is suspended, and WRESTLER becomes able to perform all services as required by this Agreement, but later again becomes disabled, or is otherwise physically unable to perform as required hereunder, PROMOTER can immediately, at its option, suspend or terminate this Agreement.” The contract was signed by Linda McMahon. [Titan Sports, Inc. Booking Contract with Owen Hart, p.15, 7/1/96]

WWE Admits Performers Risk Death in the Ring. “The physical nature of our events exposes our performers to the risk of serious injury or death.” [World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Form 10-K for the Year Ended 12/31/09]

WWE Reports that Performers’ Injury or Death Could Drive Down Profits... “Our failure to attract and retain key performers, or a serious or untimely injury to, or the death of, or unexpected or premature loss or retirement for any reason of any of our key performers, could lead to a decline in the appeal of our storylines and the popularity of our brand of entertainment, which could adversely affect our operating results.” [World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Form 10-K for the Year Ended 12/31/09]

 …And that in Some Cases, These Risks May be So Severe that WWE’s Insurance Won’t Protect the Company – Again, Lowering Profits. “We could incur substantial liability in the event of accidents or injuries occurring during our physically demanding events.  We hold numerous live events each year. This schedule exposes our performers and our employees who are involved in the production of those events to the risk of travel and performance-related accidents, the consequences of which may not be fully covered by insurance. The physical nature of our events exposes our performers to the risk of serious injury or death.  Although our performers, as independent contractors, are responsible for maintaining their own health, disability and life insurance, we self-insure medical costs for our performers for injuries that they incur while performing. We also self-insure a substantial portion of any other liability that we could incur relating to such injuries. Liability to us resulting from any death or serious injury sustained by one of our performers while performing, to the extent not covered by our insurance, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.”  [World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Form 10-K for the Year Ended 12/31/09, emphasis added]

 

FALSE ATTACK:McMahon Says “It's absurd to claim I'd vote different” Than EXACTLY THE WAY SHE SAID SHE’D VOTE

 

 

FACT: THIS ISN’T A CLAIM. IT’S A FACT. McMAHON SAID SHE’D VOTE AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL AND MAMMOGRAMS FOR WOMEN

McMahon Backed Blunt Amendment Allowing Employers to Restrict Access to Birth Control. Reported the Hartford Courant, “McMahon has said she would have supported a proposal known as the Blunt Amendment that failed in Congress earlier this year. It would have allowed private employers to restrict access to birth control through company health plans.” [Hartford Courant, 8/24/12]

Blunt Amendment Would Mean Any Employer Objecting to Mammograms Could Deny Coverage of Them.Wrote the editorial board of the New York Times, “The amendment, which was enthusiastically endorsed by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, would have allowed any employer or insurance company to refuse coverage for any activity to which they claim a religious or moral objection. That would have meant that any employer who objects to cervical-cancer vaccines could have refused to provide health insurance that covers them. The same goes for prenatal sonograms for unmarried mothers, or birth control, H.I.V. screening or mammograms.” [New York Times, 3/2/12]

American Cancer Society Opposed Blunt Amendment Because It Would Allow Women to Be Denied Coverage For Mammograms. “The lobbying arm of the American Cancer Society also opposed the Blunt amendment, saying it would allow employers to deny coverage of life-saving preventive services like mammograms and smoking cessation programs, based on ‘€ religious beliefs or moral convictions.’” [New York Times, 3/2/12]

 

FALSE ATTACK:McMahon Tries to Change the Subject From Her Own Struggling Campaign to Bad Headlines for Chris Murphy

 

FACT: McMAHON HAS BEEN ON THE DEFENSIVE FOR THE PAST TWO WEEKS, TRYING TO HIDE HER RECORD AND EXTREME RIGHT WING POLITICS

FACT: McMAHON ON DEFENSE OVER HER PERSONAL FINANCES

Headline: “After Blasts At Murphy, McMahon Pays Her Tax Late, Too.” [Hartford Courant, 9/21/12]

McMahons Were 51 Days Late On First Half Of Annual $54,110 In City Taxes On “Multimillion-Dollar Condominium” In Stamford, CT. “Republican U.S. Senate nominee Linda McMahon and her husband, WWE Chairman Vince McMahon, were more than 1½ months late in paying their property tax bill on the multimillion-dollar condominium unit they co-own in a building at 1 Broad St. in Stamford, city records show. The McMahons were 51 days late on the first half of their annual $54,110 in city taxes on the property Friday when they paid the full year's bill, plus $1,217 in interest. [Hartford Courant,9/21/12]

McMahons Owed “$28,272 In Overdue Taxes, Including A $1,217 Interest Charge, For [Their] Two-Story Penthouse” In Stamford, CT. “U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon and her husband received notice on Sept. 13 that they had failed to make a $27,055 tax payment for their penthouse unit in Trump Parc, a 34-story luxury high rise in Stamford. The tax payment was due Aug. 1. This morning, a clerk at Stamford's Office of Assessment and Tax Collection confirmed that the McMahons had a total outstanding balance of $28,272 in overdue taxes, including a $1,217 interest charge, for the two-story penthouse.” [The Day, 9/21/12]

Connecticut Post: Newly Found McMahon Bankruptcy Documents Have “Ratcheted Up Pressure” On Her Campaign.“Throughout her Senate race, McMahon has used a narrative of how she and her husband had overcome their financial woes to build the hugely successful World Wrestling Entertainment empire as a tale of personal fortitude…But newly found bankruptcy court documents this week ratcheted up pressure on McMahon, who said she had not seen the list of creditors since the time of the bankruptcy filing 36 years ago.” [Connecticut Post, 9/20/12]

Associated Press Headline: “Documents Show McMahons Owed Nearly $1 Million.” [Associated Press, 9/19/12]

McMahon Bankruptcy Records Show $955,805 In Claims In 1976 From 26 Distinct Creditors. “Bankruptcy records located at the office of the National Archives and Records Administration in Massachusetts show Linda and Vince McMahon facing a total $955,805 in claims in 1976 from 26 distinct creditors.” [The Day, 9/18/2012]

The Day: Inflation Calculator Websites Show McMahon’s Debt $3.9 Million In 2012 Dollars.  “According to inflation calculator websites, the McMahons' debt would be about $3.9 million in 2012 dollars. Yet despite the new details, it remains unclear how much of their debt the McMahons ultimately repaid.” [The Day, 9/18/2012]

American Bankruptcy Institute’s Susan Hauser On McMahon Bankruptcy: $1 Million Worth Of Debt In 1976 Would Have Been A Large Case. “As the two candidates for U.S. Senate spar over who was more irresponsible with their personal finances, new bankruptcy documents have emerged detailing the roughly $1 million Republican Linda McMahon and husband Vince owed to more than two dozen creditors…[American Bankruptcy Institute’s Susan] Hauser noted, $1 million worth of debt in 1976 would have been a large case. [Connecticut Post, 9/19/12]

Unpaid 96-Year-Old McMahon Creditor: "It Didn't End Well, I Did My Best To Forget It." “As the two candidates for U.S. Senate spar over who was more irresponsible with their personal finances, new bankruptcy documents have emerged detailing the roughly $1 million Republican Linda McMahon and husband Vince owed to more than two dozen creditors. And at least one of those -- a 96-year-old former ad man reached by Hearst Newspapers Wednesday -- is still smarting over the $4,100 he was never paid for advertising and public relations work. ‘It didn't end well,’ said Gerard Langeler, a former Woodbridge resident living in New Hampshire. ‘I did my best to forget it.’” [Connecticut Post, 9/19/12]

McMahon Creditor Pamela Behn: “I Find It Difficult To Believe That People Can Write Off Debts And Sleep Well At Night, That's Not The Way I Was Raised.” “One of [McMahon’s] creditors is the family of Pamela Behn. Her family owned Blue Lanam Farm in Colchester, where the McMahons boarded and bred Appaloosa horses, known for their leopard-spotted coats, according to Behn… Records from the McMahons' bankruptcy show Behn's family hasn't gotten paid $33,171 owed by the couple. ‘I find it difficult to believe that people can write off debts and sleep well at night,’ Behn, 68, told Hearst Connecticut Newspapers earlier Thursday, before McMahon's announcement. ‘That's not the way I was raised.’” [Connecticut Post, 9/20/12]

WTIC: “Well More Than 3 Decades After Declaring Bankruptcy Linda McMahon Has Decided To Repay Her Creditors.” [WTIC, 9/21/12(video)]

Hartford Courant: “More Than Thirty-Five Years After Walking Away From Nearly $1 Million In Debts, Republican U.S. Senate Candidate Linda McMahon Thursday Night Abruptly Decided To Repay Her Creditors — And Defuse A Growing Campaign Controversy.” [Rick Green, Hartford Courant, 9/20/12]

The Day Editorial On McMahons’ Repaying Creditors Decades After Their 1976 Bankruptcy: “And The Prize For The Most Insincere Gesture So Far In The 2012 Election Goes To … Republican Senate Candidate Linda McMahon And Husband Vince.” [The Day, Editorial, 9/22/12]

The Day Editorial: Story That McMahons Paid Back Bankruptcy Creditors After 36 Years Because The “Couple Finally Has A List” Is A “Tall Tale” “Even In The Make-Believe World Of Professional Wrestling.” “Why now, you might ask? Why 36 years after the nation's bicentennial celebration coincided with the McMahons' financial discombobulation would the couple decide it was time to make good? As Ms. McMahon explains it, it is because the couple finally has a list of the folks they owe money to, thanks to The Day and its political reporter JC Reindl. Even in the make-believe world of professional wrestling, in which the McMahons made their post-bankruptcy fortune, that's a tall tale.” [The Day, Editorial, 9/22/12]

Hartford Courant’s Jim Shea: McMahon’s Claim That She Didn’t Have Her Bankruptcy Documents “Makes You Wonder How Hard McMahon Looked.” “Previously, McMahon had insisted that documents from the bankruptcy did not exist, but this week a reporter from the New London Day was able to find a partial copy of the filing, including the names of those who had been stiffed. Not that I want to throw a gift horse under the bus, here, but this makes you wonder how hard McMahon looked.” [Jim Shea, Hartford Courant, 9/23/12]

Hartford Courant: Bankruptcy “A Central Element In McMahon’s Folksy Rags-To-Riches Campaign Narrative For Months Suddenly Threatened To Become A Liability.” “More than thirty-five years after walking away from nearly $1 million in debts, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon Thursday night abruptly decided to repay her creditors — and defuse a growing campaign controversy… The bankruptcy, a central element in McMahon’s folksy rags-to-riches campaign narrative for months, suddenly threatened to become a liability, just as she was stepping up criticism of Murphy.” [Rick Green, Hartford Courant, 9/20/12]

Connecticut Post: “After A Fresh Round Of Criticism” McMahon Announced “She Would Seek To Track Down And Reimburse Any Individual Creditor.” “After a fresh round of criticism that she and her husband had walked away from their creditors in their 1976 bankruptcy, Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon announced Thursday night she would seek to track down and reimburse any individual creditor.” [Connecticut Post, 9/20/12]

Hartford Courant: McMahon Decided To Repay Bankruptcy Creditors And “Defuse A Growing Campaign Controversy.” “More than 35 years after walking away from nearly $1 million in debts, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon Thursday night abruptly decided to repay her creditors — and defuse a growing campaign controversy.” [Hartford Courant, 9/20/12]

McMahon Bankruptcy “Suddenly Threatened To Become A Liability” For Campaign. “The bankruptcy, a central element in McMahon's folksy, rags-to-riches campaign narrative for months, suddenly threatened to become a liability, just as she was stepping up criticism of Murphy.” [Hartford Courant, 9/20/12]

The Day’s Dick Ahles: McMahon Stiffing Creditors And Not Paying Federal Taxes For Five Straight Years Is “Not, Shall We Say, Senatorial.” “During her long campaigns for the Senate, wrestling tycoon Linda McMahon has tried to make a virtue of the fact that she and husband Vince had their home foreclosed and went bankrupt before they achieved great success with their "family oriented entertainment business." Left unsaid were the details, that place where the devil lurks. But what has been revealed about stiffing creditors and not paying federal taxes for five straight years is not, shall we say, senatorial.” [Dick Ahles, The Day, 9/16/2012]

McMahon Campaign Announced Labor Union Funds Would Also Be Repaid “After” McMahon Campaign Was Asked About A Complaint From CT AFL-CIO President. “A McMahon spokesman said Friday night that several union funds, established for pensions and other purposes, will be among recipients of her bankruptcy repayments. That pronouncement came soon after The Courant asked for McMahon's response to a complaint by state AFL-CIO President John Olsen, a top state Democratic Party official, that multiple union entities had been stiffed as creditors in 1976. For example, three entities in West Haven — the Connecticut Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, Connecticut Laborers Pension Fund and New England Training Trust Fund — are listed in McMahon's bankruptcy documents as seeking $14,000. Since McMahon has promised that the inflation-adjusted repayments would be four times the original amounts, the unions are expecting $56,000. When told that the unions would be paid Monday, Olsen laughed and said: ‘This is astonishing!’” [Hartford Courant, 9/21/12]

FACT: McMAHON’S LANGUAGE MIRRORING MITT ROMNEY’S ATTACKS ON 47% of AMERICANS DREW SCRUTINY

CT Mirror: “McMahon Was Wrong In Saying 47 Percent Of Americans Don't Pay Any Taxes.” “McMahon was wrong in saying 47 percent of Americans don't pay any taxes. While approximately that number don't pay federal income taxes, many of them do pay payroll taxes that support Social Security and Medicare.” [Connecticut Mirror, 9/18/2012]

McMahon Campaign On Her Own Comments That 47 Percent Of People Don’t Pay Taxes: “There’s A Big Difference Between What Linda McMahon Stated As Fact, Which Is That 47 Percent Of Americans Don’t Pay Income Taxes, And What Mitt Romney Said With Respect To Why They May Be In That Situation.” “Launching her Senate campaign last September, McMahon told a reporter: ‘I’d like to see everyone pay their fair share. Forty-seven percent of the people today don’t pay any taxes, so let’s have a fair tax code where everybody pays their taxes.’… McMahon communications director Todd Abrajano reiterated McMahon’s disagreement with Romney’s comments and said there was a stark difference between the two statements. ’There’s a big difference between what Linda McMahon stated as fact, which is that 47 percent of Americans don’t pay income taxes, and what Mitt Romney said with respect to why they may be in that situation, he told The Daily Caller.’” [Daily Caller, 9/18/2012]

  • Tax Policy Center: 47 Percent Of Population Don’t Pay Federal Income Taxes, Which “Is Often Mistakenly Reported That They Pay No Taxes. “The Tax Policy Center issued a report last year that 47 percent of Americans do not pay federal income taxes, but it said that is often mistakenly reported that they pay no taxes. The study said many pay payroll, excise, sales, state income taxes and local property taxes.” [New Haven Register, 9/18/2012]
  • Tax Policy Center: Two-Thirds Of The Households That Paid No Income Taxes Did Pay Other Federal, State And Local Taxes. “Tax Policy Center noted that nearly two-thirds of the households that paid no income taxes did pay other federal, state and local taxes.” [Republican American, 9/19/2012]

Republican American: McMahon Campaign “Did Concede That McMahon Was Incorrect When She Stated 47 Percent Of Americans Pay No Taxes.” Republican American reported that Todd Abrajano, a McMahon spokesman “did concede that McMahon was incorrect when she stated 47 percent of Americans pay no taxes. He said it was an unintentional slip. He contended that she was referring to federal income taxes.” [Republican American, 9/19/2012]

Rachel Maddow On McMahon’s Comment That 47 Percent Of U.S. Don’t Pay Taxes: “McMahon's Perspective On This Has, Shall We Say, Evolved.” “Now, it's worth remembering that McMahon's perspective on this has, shall we say, evolved. A year ago, the wrestling-company-executive turned Senate candidate complained, ‘47 percent of the people today don't pay any taxes, so let's have a fair tax code where everybody pays their taxes.’ As of today, however, the candidate seems to have a different perspective.” [Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, 9/18/2012]

Rachel Maddow On McMahon’s Comment That 47 Percent Of U.S. Don’t Pay Taxes: McMahon Is In “Competitive Senate Race” And “Wasted No Time” Denouncing Romney. “The Romney campaign and its surrogates are eager to convince the public the candidate's ‘47 percent’ problem is little more than clumsy language, but keep an eye on Republican candidates who'll face a simple question: do you agree with the presidential candidate?... McMahon is a Republican in a competitive Senate race, and within a day of her party's presidential candidate running into another round of trouble, she wasted no time in saying, in effect, ‘I'm not with that guy.’” [Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, 9/18/2012]

FACT: WWE SCRUBBING RAUNCHY VIDEO TO HELP MCMAHON

Headline: “WWE Pulls ‘Edgier’ Footage Amid Senate Race.” [Associated Press, 9/14/12]

Fox News Headline: “McMahon Wrestling Company Tidies Online Footage, In Latest Twist For Tight Senate.” [Fox News, 9/18/12]

Headline: “WWE Pulls Classic Necrophilia Clip, Denies Connection to Linda McMahon's Campaign for Senate”[Kerry Howley, Slate, 9/19/12]

Headline: “WWE Removes Footage Amid McMahon Senate Race.” [WVIT, 9/14/12]

Headline: “WWE Pulls ‘Edgier’ Web Material Amid McMahon Senate Race In CT.” [WNBC, 9/14/12 (video)]

Headline: “WWE Pulls Raunchy Videos Off Web” [Connecticut Post, 9/14/12]

Journal Enquirer: WWE Ordered YouTube To Remove Sexually “Explicit Excerpts Of Programming That Could Embarrass McMahon.” “The company co-founded by Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon and now run by her husband -- World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. -- has ordered the Internet video site YouTube to remove sexually explicit excerpts of its programming that could embarrass McMahon.” [Journal Enquirer, 9/15/12]

Journal Enquirer’s Chris Powell: Why Is “McMahon Is Boasting Of Her Career As A ‘Job Creator’ While Her Company Is Trying To Hide Some Of The Jobs She Created?” “What dark appetites and impulses was McMahon both feeding and drawing her livelihood from? And how does such business success qualify someone for high office, especially as McMahon is boasting of her career as a ‘job creator’ while her company is trying to hide some of the jobs she created?” [Chris Powell, Journal Enquirer, 9/18/2012]

Greenwich Post: WWE Releasing DVD Collection Of “Often Salacious” “Attitude Era” Footage After McMahon/Murphy Senate Race Is Over. “Last week, WWE removed clips of the high rated and often salacious ‘Attitude Era’ from its website and claimed it had nothing to do with Ms. McMahon’s campaign, but rather ‘preserving the current family-friendly brand of entertainment.’…WWE does have a DVD collection of ‘Attitude Era’ material set for release for Nov. 20, which is naturally after the election.” [Greenwich Post, 9/20/12]

FACT: McMAHON FACED INTENSE SCRUTINY OVER HER SUPPORT OF THE RIGHT WING ANTI-CHOICE BLUNT AMENDMENT

McMahon’s Support Of The Blunt Amendment Has “Given Murphy An Opening.” “However, she has said that she would support the Blunt Amendment, which would allow employers to decline to cover birth control for employees if they have a moral problem with doing so, and that has given Murphy an opening.” [Daily Caller, 9/24/12]

McMahon Has “Been Critiqued For Her Mixed Record On Abortion Rights” Including “Not Supporting Reproductive Health Care Initiatives, Including Mandatory Birth Control Coverage Under The Affordable Care Act.” “In fact, Republican Linda McMahon, who is currently running for Senate against Democrat Chris Murphy, has recently been critiqued for her mixed record on abortion rights. Although she describes herself as pro-choice, the candidate has been criticized for not supporting reproductive health care initiatives, including mandatory birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act.” [PolicyMic Blog, 9/22/12]

Connecticut NARAL Board Member Shannon Lane: Blunt Amendment Makes Birth Control “Out Of Reach For Many American Women." Connecticut NARAL board member Shannon Lane: "This would make birth control less accessible, more expensive and, quite frankly, out of reach for many American women. Choosing to make it harder for women to access birth control does not make you pro-choice." [Connecticut Mirror, 9/13/2012]

NARAL Spokesperson Christian Miron: McMahon’s Support Of The “Extremist” Blunt Amendment Meant That She “Cannot Be Trusted.” NARAL spokeperson Christian “Miron called [Blunt amendment] an ‘extremist’ proposal, and said that McMahon’s support shows that she ‘cannot be trusted’ to protect access to reproductive health care.” [New Haven Independent, 9/10/2012]

NARAL Executive Director Christian Miron: “What We’re Hearing From Women Around The State Is They Don’t Trust Linda McMahon.” “Linda McMahon is catching hell from the political left over her albeit somewhat reluctant support for a failed Senate amendment that would have given employers the latitude to opt-out of providing insurance coverage for birth control as part of their health care plans… ‘What we’re hearing from women around the state is they don’t trust Linda McMahon,’ Miron told members of the media.” [Neil Vigdor, Hearst Blog, 9/11/2012]

 

LIES: McMahon Tries to Claim She’s “Independent”

 

FACT: McMAHON HAS EMBRACED A RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN AGENDA – SHE’S NOT INDEPENDENT

FACT: LINDA McMAHON HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO RIGHT WING CANDIDATES AND CAUSES

Linda And Vince McMahon Have Given $150,000 To Restore Our Future, The Pro-Mitt Romney SuperPAC. "Linda McMahon is spreading the wealth to fellow Republicans from the top of the ticket on down. The GOP Senate nominee gave $75,000 to the pro-Mitt Romney Super PAC Restore Our Future, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Washington, D.C., organization tracks the role of money in campaigns. So did her husband, Vince McMahon. … The rise of super PACs has given donors like McMahon an additional conduit to help their candidate." [Greenwich Time, 9/16/12]

·       6/7/12: Linda McMahon Gave Restore Our Future $75,000. [Restore Our Future June 2012 Monthly Report, FEC, accessed 9/18/12]

·       6/7/12: Vince McMahon Gave Restore Our Future $75,000. [Restore Our Future June 2012 Monthly Report, FEC, accessed 9/18/12]

Between August 1990 And April 2012, McMahon Contributed At Least $234,500 To Republican Causes.Between August 1990 and April 2012, McMahon contributed $234,500 to Republican candidates, committees, and PACs. The average contribution for the 57 different donations was $4,114.  [CQ Moneyline, accessed 7/25/12]

Since 1996, McMahon Has Contributed A Total Of $31,440 To State-Level Political Causes In Connecticut. Since 1996, McMahon contributed $31,440 to at the state-level. $28,190 went to Republicans, while $3,250 went to Democrats.  [National Institute for Money in State Politics, accessed 8/10/12]

FACT: McMAHON ISN’T LISTENING TO CONNECTICUT – SHE’S SINGING FROM THE SAME RIGHT WING SONG BOOK AS MITT ROMNEY

September 2011: McMahon: “Forty-Seven Percent Of The People Today Don't Pay Any Taxes…” [WTNH, 9/20/11]

May 2012: Romney On Obama Supporters: “These Are People Who Pay No Income Tax. Forty-Seven Percent Of Americans Pay No Income Tax.” [Romney Fundraiser, May 2012 via Mother Jones, 9/17/12]

Those Who Don’t Pay Federal Income Taxes: Active Duty Military In Combat Zones, Students, Senior, And Working Americans. “Who are the 47% of Americans Romney Attacked? They are probably not the moocher class that Romney envisioned when he made the comments. They are a diverse group and don’t pay federal income tax for a diverse set of reasons: … Active duty military in combat zones; Students; Seniors – one in five of those that pay no federal income taxes are elderly; Working Americans – 61 percent have jobs and pay 15.3 percent of their income in payroll taxes; Fully 83 percent of those paying no federal income taxes are either working or are elderly.” [Progress Report, Think Progress, 9/18/12]

FACT: McMAHON CONTINUES TO SUPPORT A RIGHT-WING REPUBLICAN AGENDA

FACT: McMAHON HAS ECHOED REPUBLICAN ATTACKS ON MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY

McMahon: Paul Ryan’s “Brave” To Put Forth His Budget Proposal.“[McMahon] said Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, was ‘brave’ to put forth his budget proposal in Congress – a plan that shrinks government considerably.” [CT Senate 2012 blog, New Haven Register8/13/12]

·       Ryan Budget Included Proposal To Turn Medicare Into A Voucher Program. “The most contentious part of Ryan's proposed budget is what he would do to change Medicare, the nation's insurance plan for retirees and a political third rail. Ryan's plan would eventually transform Medicare into defined payments that seniors can use to buy private insurance or a government plan on an insurance exchange.” [Yahoo News, 8/11/12]

McMahon “Won’t Rule Out Paul Ryan’s Approach to Fixing Medicare.” In August 2012, McMahon said she “won’t rule out Paul Ryan’s approach to fixing Medicare…”  [CT Senate 2012 blog, New Haven Register8/13/12]

·       Ryan Plan Offered Seniors A “Capped Voucher To Purchase Private Insurance,” Making Them Pay Up To $6,400 More In 10 Years. In August 2012, the New Haven Register’s CT Senate 2012 blog wrote, “Ryan’s plan, which would offer seniors a capped voucher to purchase private insurance that the Congressional Budget Office in 2011 said would cost them $6,400 more on average by 2022, does not apply to recipients who are 10 years from becoming eligible, but would kick in for those now under age 55.  [CT Senate 2012 blog, New Haven Register8/13/12]

McMahon And Ryan Were “On The Same Page” On Cutting Spending And Reducing The Size Of Government. In August 2012, McMahon said of Paul Ryan, “He put a plan in place. He is a conservative. He wants to cut spending. He wants to reduce the size of government. He and I are on the same page of doing that…”  [CT Senate 2012 blog, New Haven Register8/13/12]

McMahon Said She Was “Going To Have To Take A Look At Medicare Cuts.” On CNBC in August 2010, John Harwood asked Linda McMahon, “Do you support Paul Ryan’s Roadmap to the American Future, which does make big cuts in the deficit, but it does so by restraining dramatically the growth of Medicare?” McMahon responded, “I support some of what Paul Ryan has suggested—not all of it but some of it.” Harwood asked, “Not willing to embrace the Medicare cuts?” McMahon answered, “I’m going to have to take a look at Medicare cuts.” [CNBC, 8/10/10] VIDEO

McMahon Was Asked If She Would Include Social Security And Medicaid In Her 10% Across The Board Budget Cuts And She Said: “Let Me Just Name A Couple Of Other Things, Too.” AMANPOUR: You talk a lot about reducing the size of government and reducing spending. What precisely would you tackle in order to reduce the massive trillion-dollar-plus budget deficit? MCMAHON: The reason I've not been specific as to particular programs -- and I've dealt with it in terms of rolling back non- defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels -- because that was an approach that I took as a CEO. You look at, OK, how are you going to cut costs and cut expenses? You can look at a 10 percent cut across the board. AMANPOUR: Everybody's busy trying to do the math right now on all the campaigns and regarding the budget deficit. The latest shows the Republicans can come up with something like $100 billion in cuts, which is a lot, but a pittance compared to the trillion... MCMAHON: ... $1.3 trillion deficit... AMANPOUR: Yes, exactly. MCMAHON: ... and over $13 billion debt. I get that. AMANPOUR: Exactly. So the big issues that take up most of the spending are, obviously, defense -- some 20 percent... MCMAHON: Sure. AMANPOUR: ... Social Security and Medicaid. Is that where you would cut? MCMAHON: Let me just name a couple of other things, too. I just think we should freeze the federal hiring and freeze wages again, not going to make a big dent. However, I do believe we should take the balance of the stimulus money and pay down the debt.[This Week, ABC,10/10/10VIDEO]

If Linda McMahon’s “Balanced Budget” Plan Was Enacted This Year, It Would Potentially Mandate Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security Cuts.  Linda McMahon proclaims support for a so-called Balanced Budget Amendment, which is a constitutional amendment mandating that federal outlays not exceed total tax receipts.  This year, the federal budget deficit is $1.5 trillion.  Linda McMahon has said on the campaign trail that she opposes any tax increases to balance the budget and that she would exempt Defense spending ($714 billion), Homeland Security ($41 billion), and Veterans Benefits ($162 billion) from her proposed spending cuts in order to reach her goal.  Including debt service ($196 billion), this leaves just $917 billion left, meaning Congress would have to cut 57% of the rest of government spending—including Medicare, Medicaid (currently $736 billion) and Social Security ($749 billion).  Even if you shut down funding for highways, ended small business and education loans, and cut the entire Department of Justice, this plan would still serious consequences for the entitlement programs, if enacted.  [Washington Post, 7/24/10; Congressional Research Service Summary, H.J.Res78, 3/2/10; Linda McMahon Editorial Board Interview (Hartford Courant), 7/20/10; OMB U.S. Budget, Mid-Session Review, 8/25/09; Congressional Research Service, “Mandatory spending Since 1962,” 9/15/10; LM at Conservative Women’s Luncheon PT 2, 9/23/1; LM Remarks at Gun Enthusiasts Meeting, 9/22/10; LM Common Sense CT Interview, 8/30/10; LM at Taste of Mystic, 9/10/10; Linda McMahon, Chaz & AJ Show FM 99.1, 8/3/10]

FACT: McMAHON OPPOSES COMMON SENSE REGULATIONS OF WALL ST.

McMahon Called Wall Street Reform “Ridiculous,” An “Overreaching By The Government,” And Said It Would Put “Regulation In Place That We Just Don’t Need.” “Linda McMahon is a petite and friendly woman with that magnetic smile that political consultants crave. But when she starts talking about the Democrats’ financial reform package, she gets a bit of an edge in her voice. ‘It’s 2,300 pages. It’s just, I think, ridiculous,’ she said in an interview with The Daily Caller. ‘It’s overreaching by the government…It’s putting regulation in place that we just don’t need. And it’s just a typical government solution.’” [Daily Caller, 7/11/10]

McMahon On Wall Street Reform: “I’m Not In Favor Of It,”Said It Was Too Far-Reaching. In a June 2010 interview with the National Journal’s Hotline, McMahon said she didn’t support Congress’ financial reform bill. “I’m not in favor of it. I'm not,” McMahon said. “I think we do need to have some form of financial reform, but I think this is a really over-reaching, over-arching bill.” [Hotline, 6/24/2010]

McMahon Said She Would Have Voted Against Wall Street Reform.Speaking to the Norwich Bulletin editorial board in July 2010, McMahon said, “I would have [voted against financial regulatory reform] because, the nonstarter for me, is there was absolutely no addressing a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the very beginning and I think that this financial reform bill, and I’m not saying we shouldn’t have some financial reform, I think that we should look at some of their’s- we do need some more transparency.” [Norwich Bulletin Editorial Board, 7/22/10]

“McMahon Sidestepped A Question On Hedge Fund Regulation” And Thought There Were “A Lot Of Good Rules And Regulations That Apply To The Market” Already. “McMahon sidestepped a question on hedge fund regulation. ‘Well, I just think we have a lot of good rules and regulations that apply to the market, and I don't want to comment on hedge funds in particular,’ said McMahon, whose hometown is often referred to as the hedge fund capital.” [Stamford Advocate, 6/14/10]

McMahon Opposed Creating Watchdog Agency To Protect Consumers. “She did, however, come out against the establishment of a new, federal consumer agency, one of the Dodd’s major objectives.‘My first reaction is, I don’t think we need to create any more government agencies,’ McMahon said. ‘I think we have enough government agencies. They just need to do their job. If there’s reform, or we need to hold people more accountable, let’s do that.’” [New Haven Independent, 3/15/10]

FACT: McMAHON SUPPORTS RIGHT-WING ANTI-CHOICE AGENDA

Family Institute of Connecticut Director: For Social Conservatives, ‘The Math Points To Linda McMahon’” In March 2010, the Hartford Courant reported that McMahon was gaining support among “social conservatives.” Daniela Altimari wrote, “‘I know of almost no social conservatives who are backing Simmons,’ said Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, a Catholic and a leading voice for religious conservatives in the state…Two of the legislature's most prominent social conservatives, Rep. T.R, Rowe of Trumbull and Sen. Michael McLachlan of Danbury, have endorsed Republican Linda McMahon…” and "I haven't made up my mind, but I can understand why T.R. Rowe and Michael McLachlan would endorse Linda McMahon,'' said Wolfgang. "When I look at the Senate race, the math for social conservatives points to Linda McMahon.'' [Hartford Courant, 3/25/10]

·       Family Institute Of Connecticut: “There Is A Movement In Our Direction…There is A WellSpring Of Pro-Lifers To Be Found.”“The success of Dean and Boughton prompted Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, to call 2010 ‘a breakthrough year for the pro-life movement'' in the state. ‘Connecticut is not going to elect a Henry Hyde or a Rick Santorum in the next year or two,'' Wolfgang said, citing two widely known anti-abortion advocates on the national level. ‘But there is movement in our direction. … Below that veneer of New England Republican enlightenment, there is still a wellspring of pro-lifers to be found.’” [Hartford Courant, 8/22/10]

McMahon Has Been Privately Supportive Of The Positions Held By Social Conservatives On Issues Like Abortion.  “Even if McMahon's been relatively mum in public about political wedge issues like abortion, she hasn't been so reticent in private. More than a year ago, she dispatched campaign aides to speak with Peter Wolfgang, head of the Family Institute of Connecticut, which advocates against abortion, gay marriage, and other issues. ‘They explained what her positions were on abortion, and said they wanted to have a conversation,’ Wolfgang recalled of that initial chat, which led to several follow-up discussions, including a few with McMahon herself. He said the discussions have focused on what kind of relationship ‘a potential Senator McMahon would have with the social conservative moment in Connecticut.’ Wolfgang said that while her pro-choice position runs counter to the Institute's principals, the fact that she has offered a few qualifiers represents serious progress. ‘No one is looking at Linda McMahon and saying 'This is the next Rick Santorum',’ he said, referring to the former Pennsylvania senator and anti-abortion crusader. ‘But we are thinking this is much better than Nancy Johnson. This is much better than Jodi Rell,’ he said, referring respectively to former Republican 5th District congresswoman and current GOP governor.” [Connecticut Mirror, 10/14/10]

FACT: McMAHON’S PLAN TO CUT TAXES FOR THE RICH WAS DEVELOPED BY RIGHT WING BUSH ADMINISTRATION ECONOMIST

McMahon’s Economist, Hired To “Affirm The Numbers In Her Economic Recovery Plan … Does Consulting For A Clientele More Befitting Of K Street Than Main Street.”In July 2012, the Greenwich Time reported that economist John Dunham, “principal of John Dunham & Associates,” was hired as an economist to “affirm numbers in the economic recovery plan…” Dunham “mainly does consulting work for a clientele more befitting of K Street than Main Street, from Verizon Wireless and Diageo to the Cigar Association of America and the New York Yankees.”  [Greenwich Time7/14/12]

·       McMahon: My Tax Cut Plan, Which Reduces Deficit By $1.7 Trillion Over 8 Years, “Pays For Itself.”In July 2012, the Greenwich Time reported that McMahon called for “tax cuts for the middle-class and businesses, as well as a 1 percent annual haircut on spending by the federal government. McMahon's campaign says the plan, which is available in a glossy brochure and has its own website, will have a positive budgetary impact of nearly $1.7 trillion from 2013 to 2021.” McMahon said, “I’ve had an economist test it. This plan of mine pays for itself.”  [Greenwich Time7/14/12]

·       Economist’s Firm “Also Goes By The Moniker Of Guerilla Economics.”In July 2012, the Greenwich Time reported that the firm John Dunham & Associates “also goes by the moniker of Guerilla Economics.”  [Greenwich Time7/14/12]

·       Rick Perry Hired The Same Firm To Review His Flat-Tax Proposal During His Presidential Run.In July 2012, the Greenwich Time reported that Gov. Rick Perry retained the services of John Dunham & Associates “to go over his flat-tax proposal when he was running for president…”  [Greenwich Time7/14/12]

·       In First Tweet, Dunham & Associates Said They Were An “Economic Consulting Form That Supports Lobbyists.”In July 2012, the Greenwich Time reported that Dunham & Associates tweeted in November 2009, “New to Twitter! We're an economic consulting firm that supports lobbyists. Want a legislator to listen? Tell them how much its (sic) gonna cost ...”  [Greenwich Time7/14/12]

McMahon Paid Guerrilla Economics Over $56,000.McMahon’s 2012 campaign for senate paid Guerrilla Economics $56,527.50 for “political research.” [FEC.gov, accessed 8/12/12]

McMahon “Cited” John Rutledge When Asked For The Source Of Her Position On Extending The Bush Tax Cuts, Including Those For The Wealthiest Americans.In September 2010, Connecticut Post reported that Linda McMahon supported extending the Bush tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest Americans. “Asked to provide the sources for her position on the tax cuts, McMahon cited John Ruttledge, who advertises himself as ‘one of the principal architects’ of President Ronald Reagan's economic plan and an adviser to the Bush White House. Blumenthal said he was relying on ‘the Congressional Budget Office, eminent economists and the (White House) Office of Management and Budget.’” [Connecticut Post,9/11/10]

·       Linda McMahon Paid Bush Advisor John Rutledge $100,000 To Help Compose Economic Policy Calling For Abolishing the Estate Tax, Making the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Permanent.In June 2010, the Stamford Advocate reported that “the McMahon campaign spent $20,000 seeking economic policy advice from John Rutledge, of Nevada, who advertises himself as ‘one of the principal architects’ of President Ronald Reagan's economic plan and an adviser to the Bush White House on tax policy.” On her website, McMahon echoes many of the same policies, favoring a full abolishment of the estate tax and making the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for couples making more than $250,000 a year.” According to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission McMahon has paid Rutledge a total of $100,000, including $20,000 payments on April 4th, March 2nd, May 22nd, June 4th and July 2nd. [Stamford Advocate, 6/13/10; Linda for Senate,Issues; Linda McMahon for Senate 2010 July Quarterly FEC Report,7/15/10; Linda McMahon for Senate 2010 Pre-Primary FEC Report, 7/29/10]