Linda McMahon for Senate catch-all thread

[Jingus]

The point is that Vince is trying to portray this as a freedom-of-speech violation, when he doesn't allow the fans to practice similar freedoms at his own events.

[Loss]

Disrupting someone's political freedom of speech (which I'm not at all saying is the case) is not the same as controlling what people wear at an entertainment event (which I agree is a questionable policy).

 

Are restaurants that have dress codes violating their patrons' freedom of speech?

[Jingus]

Are restaurants that have dress codes violating their patrons' freedom of speech?

That's only half an analogy. To make it complete, you'd need the restraunt owner to be running for political office, and then to complain about some wacky rule about dress codes at the polls which are supposedly targeted at hurting his election chances. Vince is acting like it should be everyone's constitutional right to wear any damn clothing to any damn event no matter what, and clearly he's full of shit with his own company's practices being obvious proof.

[sek69]

Not that I disagree with the ridiculousness of Vince's point, but I don't see what confiscating signs at a wrestling event has to do with this.

 

Vince is all in an uproar that asking voters to remove WWE shirts is violating their freedom of speech (despite the first amendment being about Congress making no law, but whatevs), yet they do the exact same thing by confiscating signs at wrestling shows. The point being that Vince is entirely full of shit when he tries to act like a modern day Larry Flynt free-speech activist.

[Guest Slickster]

While I can understand censoring signs and T-shirts (like a restaurant dress code), I can also see why people would dislike what appear to be conditions being placed on what is a Constitutionally-protected right.

 

One is a private enterprise's decisions, the other is not.

[Jingus]

It's not a constitutional right to wear slogans advertising a candidate into the voting both. That's illegal in CT and many other states, and it's never been a controversial issue. Nobody in California was whining that they couldn't wear a Terminator t-shirt into the voting booth for the gubanatorial race. Wearing any WWE merchandise is legally considered to be shilling for Linda McMahon's campaign, period, and that's against the law. You also couldn't go in there wearing a Republican Party baseball cap. That's simply how the rules work.

[MikeCampbell]

I'll fully admit my ignorance to all things politics, but reading some you guys posts have made the situation a lot more clear to me. I read the intial article and I was picturing Average Joe on his day off going to the booth in his blue jeans, sneakers, and CENATION t-shirt and being told that he's not allowed to vote because he's wearing a WWE related T-shirt.

[Guest Slickster]

Isn't that exactly what could happen in this situation, though?

 

I just don't agree with limiting what a person can wear when going to the polls. I understand there's precedent but it seems like a 'slippery slope' concept in my opinion.

[artDDP]

The point is that Vince is trying to portray this as a freedom-of-speech violation, when he doesn't allow the fans to practice similar freedoms at his own events.

Reminds of the late 90s when the fans would hoist their most vulgar signs as Jim Ross screamed about "freedom of expression! Freedom of expression! By God, freedom of expression!"

[S.L.L.]

Isn't that exactly what could happen in this situation, though?

 

I just don't agree with limiting what a person can wear when going to the polls. I understand there's precedent but it seems like a 'slippery slope' concept in my opinion.

I'm not seeing it. Where does the slippery slope lead to in this case? Even more formal dress codes at polling stations? Suit-and-tie requirements? Does Men's Warehouse have a powerful lobby in Washington? Is there any real reason to get worked up about this other than to help Vince create his government boogeyman after Linda loses?

[sek69]

If I was Mike Rotunda, I'd be hitting the gym like a madman getting ready for the return of I.R.S. as generic evil government type.

[Al]

The Supreme Court has pretty strongly upheld the first amendment when it comes to campaign financing. I have the feeling that if someone challenged their rights based on their choice of t-shirt, the law wouldn't hold up.

[jdw]

The Supreme Court has pretty strongly upheld the first amendment when it comes to campaign financing. I have the feeling that if someone challenged their rights based on their choice of t-shirt, the law wouldn't hold up.

The Roberts SCOTUS has largely (or more correctly massively) expanded rights for Corporations, Law Enforcement and Government. They're not quite done the same for individuals, other than "rich individuals", and in fact have typically ruled against individuals in the face of either law enforcement, corporations or the gov.

 

So it really depends on how the case is brought, and who brings it. If it's a pro-Prop 19 shirt or a MoveOn shirt, that it would lose. If it was a Chamber of Commerce related shirt for one of their candidates, then it would stand a chance.

 

John

[Cox]

I have a friend who lives in Connecticut and works in the financial industry there. He received the following E-Mail today:

 

"Linda McMahon, the Connecticut Senate Candidate, is coming to the [redacted] office this Friday at 1:30 p.m. Linda is the former CEO of World Wide Wrestling and this is her first run for political office. We will hold this reception in the lunch room next to Direct. You are welcome to bring a spouse or friend. We all represent [redacted]. We will all be polite. This should conclude by 3:00 p.m. In addition, to your own wants and needs from a U.S. Senator, [redacted] is interested in lower taxes, less regulation and a healthy financial services industry. We want to hire more great people, pay more and keep more."

[Ronnie]

Vince is suing CT:

 

“On behalf of myself, my company, WWE fans and any Connecticut citizen who wants to exercise their constitutional right to vote, I have filed a lawsuit today asserting that Susan Bysiewicz’s directive that allows poll workers to refuse registered voters wearing WWE merchandise the right to vote is a flagrant act of censorship and discrimination,” said Vince McMahon, Chairman and CEO, World Wrestling Entertainment.

 

Source

[jdw]

Do Vince and Linda really think this is going to turn things around in Linda's campaign? That this is going to be a face spot?

 

Sure, teapartiers have a strange idea of free speech when not stomping on the heads of women with a differing view are expressing their free speech rights. But it's a *wrestling* related free speech, which draws again attention that Linda and Vince run a dumbass business (as viewed by the majority of people) with dumbass fans (as viewed by the majority of people).

 

It's another sign of how delusional the two of them are.

 

Joh

[Ronnie]

And here's Vince commenting on the issue, before it was made public that he was suing.

[El-P]

Ok, how much money has been sunk into this Linda-for-governor project already ?

[Guest Slickster]

And he wins!

WWE sent out a release saying that Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz notified all Registrars of Voters and town clerks in Connecticut via e-mail to allow people wearing WWE merchandise to vote.

The WWE is using this as a victory over Richard Blumenthal as well.

"Attorney General Richard Blumenthal should have immediately stepped in to enforce the law. As a result of the Attorney General's inaction, I brought suit to enfroce these basic, fundamental constitutional rights. Within hours of filing the lawsuit, Blumenthal recused himself,and Bysiewicz reversed her position." wrote Vince McMahon.

[jdw]

Ok, how much money has been sunk into this Linda-for-governor project already ?

Estimated at $50M by the time its done.

 

John

[jdw]

And he wins!

WWE sent out a release saying that Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz notified all Registrars of Voters and town clerks in Connecticut via e-mail to allow people wearing WWE merchandise to vote.

The WWE is using this as a victory over Richard Blumenthal as well.

"Attorney General Richard Blumenthal should have immediately stepped in to enforce the law. As a result of the Attorney General's inaction, I brought suit to enfroce these basic, fundamental constitutional rights. Within hours of filing the lawsuit, Blumenthal recused himself,and Bysiewicz reversed her position." wrote Vince McMahon.

The question would be what does Vince win?

 

I'm also not entirely sure what Blumenthal should have done to "enfore the law". He's claiming a constitutional right that is Federal, and last I checked Blumenthal was the AG of CT, not the US. He also has a clear conflict: he's running against Linda. Leaving it to the Secretary of State, who runs elections in a sense, is the proper route.

 

Which goes to my question: what does Vince win? He comes across as largely what he's and the McMahons are being seen as Linda's numbers tank: a loud mouth asshole.

 

John

[Log]

I think on general principal, people who wear wrestling t-shirts to vote anywhere should be turned away.

[El-P]

Ok, how much money has been sunk into this Linda-for-governor project already ?

Estimated at $50M by the time its done.

 

John

 

Amazing waste of money. WCW level waste.

[Al]

I agree with the McMahons on principle but that was not a good time to attack their opponent.

[sek69]

So I wonder if/when the Democrats will unleash their secret weapon of dirty McMahon laundry.