Local Candidates Promoting Their Company

U. S. Senate candidate for Connecticut Linda McMahon was, until she announced her candidacy, the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), and her management of that company has been her principal argument for electing her. WWE announced yesterday that it will be "giving away WWE merchandise near select Connecticut poll locations on Election Day."

Let's put aside the issue of the legality of giving anything away to voters and focus on the issue of promoting one's company and using its merchandise as an enticement to vote, presumably for the candidate giving away the merchandise. Think of the situation where a mayoral candidate owns a beloved barbeque joint or the local Harley-Davidson dealership, and has effectively worn his chef's hat or Harley t-shirt throughout her race.

I've already written about the issue of a government official wearing clearly logoed clothing from a company that sponsors her husband (not a good idea). What if the clearly logoed clothing was that of a company owned by the official and her husband, that is, the use of one's office to bring business to oneself? That would clearly be a misuse of office, even though most ethics codes would have nothing clear to say about it (the City Ethics Model Code conflict provision, because it is written in terms of use of office and benefits rather than interests, would more clearly apply to this situation).

If McMahon were already a senator and were giving away merchandise from her husband's company, this would also be promotion of a company she personally benefits from, and therefore prohibited. So, at the very least, giving away merchandise would be highly unfair for a candidate for mayor running against an incumbent who is unable to push the products of her company.

But let's say the situation is like McMahon's, where the incumbent is not a candidate. Should a candidate for mayor be held to the same ethics rules as the mayor herself? Some ethics codes do cover candidates, at least for some provisions (including, of course, campaign finance provisions, where those are part of the ethics code). Some provisions would clearly not apply, such as confidential information (a candidate wouldn't be privy to it) and post-employment provisions.

But what about basic conflicts of interest? Should, for example, candidates be permitted to use their candidacy to help their business? Candidates clearly are allowed to use their business to help their candidacy, in the sense of showing how successful they were. They are allowed to use the goodwill established by their business to help them win an election. But should they be able to go around promoting the business with free hamburgers and Harley t-shirts, and even free Harleys to one lucky person at each appearance?

This turns an election from a political circus into a commercial circus. I think this is detrimental to our election process. We allow political parties to hand out free hamburgers at party picnics. That's fine, because those hamburgers have nothing to do with the candidates. We allow political candidates to spend all the money they want pushing themselves and talking about their business. That's questionable, but required by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment.

But should we allow candidates to spend their money or contributors' money to promote their family's products, and use their family's products to get people to the polls to presumably vote for them?

Whether it is legal or not, there is a strong appearance of impropriety. Hamburger and Harley fans may be enticed to the polls, but the smell of rotten meat or motorcycle fumes will be hard to get out of the noses of those who supported other, losing candidates.

The WWE press release quotes McMahon's husband as saying, “I can’t think of a better way for WWE fans to celebrate their constitutional rights and freedom of expression..." But is this really a first amendment issue? Wearing WWE t-shirts might be, sure, but handing them out at the polls? Why not hand out $20 bills? At least they wouldn't involve promotion of a company owned by the candidate's family. But what would people think?

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---