Political Capitol

Yesterday evening Linda McMahon’s U.S. Senate campaign issued a press release criticizing Congressional Democrats for “bypassing a formal conference committee on healthcare and instead finalizing a health care overhaul in secret, behind closed doors.”

“I am deeply troubled that Washington politicians are contemplating finalizing behind closed doors a health care bill whose scope will impact the lives of every American and whose size is equal to one-sixth of the U.S. economy,” McMahon said. “The future of America’s health care is too important to be decided in secret in a process devoid of bipartisanship.”

In a bit of political karma, it was reported today that the Federal Elections Commission believes McMahon has been less-than-transparent in divulging certain details about her campaign finances.

If McMahon plans to campaign on being a more open kind of politician, she needs to begin at home.

Freshman U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, a Democrat from Greenwich, just announced four public forums in his district on America’s policy in Afghanistan.

Himes has clearly taken a cue from the man he defeated – long time Republican U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays – who also made an effort to interact with his constituents by organizing such events.

Some of our other elected officials – ahem U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Stamford ahem – choose instead to occasionally drop by a diner to talk to voters.

Granted there is a risk in holding public forums. Rather than being productive, they can devolve into a circus, as was witnessed last year during the healthcare debate.

But they are far more valuable than the diner visits, when the politician, with their entourage of staff and invited members of the press, suddenly walks in the door expecting shy patrons who wanted nothing more than to enjoy a good morning cup of coffee and some eggs to be prepared for a serious, face-to-face political discussion.

The people who attend the forums want to be there. They want to hear from their elected officials, want to hear what other voters have to say, and want the opportunity to ask a question or to even angrily confront the Congressman or Congresswoman.

Hearst Newspapers tomorrow is running a piece I wrote on what I’d call the current love/hate relationship between the state and Stamford-based World Wrestling Entertainment.

Linda McMahon’s family business, its product and treatment of talent have come under fire during the past year as McMahon has entered the public arena, first joining the state Board of Education and now seeking the GOP nod for U.S. Senate.

While McMahon and her supporters argue she is a smart business woman who could shake-up Congress, critics want to paint WWE as a trashy business and McMahon as someone who has made millions by exploiting her employees.

But despite the criticism from the Republicans and Democrats locked in battle with McMahon, many state and local officials from both parties are happy to claim WWE as a Connecticut-based business and happy for the jobs it provides and the taxes it generates.

My story also touches on whether concerned lawmakers might be willing to look at regulating WWE matches in the state just as the Department of Public Safety currently oversees boxing.

Something I learned but was unable to include due to a lack of space was the fact that, in 2007, the late state Rep. Dick Belden, R-Shelton unsuccessfully proposed legislation giving Connecticut greater control over public wrestling exhibitions.

Belden, according to a Jan. 11, 2007 press release, introduced the bill in response to the 2005 death of a constituent – Daniel Quirk – who received fatal injuries during an Ultimate Championship Wrestling match in Massachusetts (Ultimate is not affiliated with WWE).

Belden claimed better regulations could have saved Quirk’s life and wanted to at least see changes in the young man’s home state.

Rep. Stephen Dargan, D-West Haven, co-chairman of the legislature’s Public Safety and Security Committee, co-sponsored the bill and recalled it got bogged down in debate over the impact on high school wrestling.

WWE is known for opposing such regulations, maintaining its matches are a form of entertainment and not a real sport.

Dargan said he might have had a brief conversation with a WWE representative in 2007 “but I really don’t remember them pushing to get rid of the bill.”

I asked Dargan if he would be willing to revisit Belden’s proposal during the upcoming 2010 legislative session.

“I’m open minded about anything but I’d have to see what is the problem,” Dargan said.

“And they’re not only national but international,” Dargan said. “How many events do they actually have within our state? (5 to 6 annually, according to WWE). We can’t regulate what they do in New York, Pennsylvania, California or any place else. Really to go after one company because the second-in-command is running for U.S. Senate I don’t think would be fair.”

UPDATE: Irv Muchnick, who has written quite a bit about wrestling, the WWE and the McMahon family, weighs in on my story today on his blog.