November 18, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
Peter McGourty
November 18, 1996
Page 1
Peter McGourty
6-7 Village Square, E.
Botany Village
Clifton, NJ 07011
Stephen Koppekin
Senior Vice President, Industrial Relations
Paramount Studios
555 Melrose Avenue
Bluhdorn 105
Hollywood, CA 90038
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Peter McGourty
November 18, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1221-LU11-PNJ
Gentlemen:
Peter McGourty, a member of Local Union 11, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) alleging that Paramount Studios, an employer, violated the Rules when a tabloid television news program produced and distributed by Paramount aired a two-and-a-half-minute segment portraying James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, in so favorable a light that it constituted a prohibited employer contribution.[1]
The producers of the television news program deny that the segment was an advertisement for the Hoffa campaign, calling it instead a “human interest piece.”
Peter McGourty
November 18, 1996
Page 1
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Peter V. Marks, Sr..
The evidence shows that on November 7, 1996, the Paramount television news program Hard Copy aired a two-and-a-half minute segment profiling Mr. Hoffa’s father and Mr. Hoffa’s current campaign for general president. The segment contained archive footage and photographic stills of the senior Mr. Hoffa, an excerpt from a recent feature film in which the actor Jack Nicholson played the senior Mr. Hoffa, and various clips from home movies in which the senior Mr. Hoffa is shown relaxing with his family. Interspersed throughout are excerpts from an interview with Mr. Hoffa in which the son praises his father and describes his current campaign as an attempt to restore the IBT to the stature it had attained under his father’s leadership.
Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules states, in pertinent part:
No employer may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, direct or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of that contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution.
The Election Officer has recognized a broad exception to the rule on campaign contributions for “publications intended for and dessiminated [sic] to the general public,” as to which “[t]he First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires . . . the greatest latitude in exercising the right to communicate.” Hoffa, P-743-IBT-SCE (May 23, 1996). Thus, under the “media exception” to the regulation of campaign contributions, the Election Officer does not exercise jurisdictions over “newspaper or magazine articles published by entities which are not owned or whose editorial policies are not controlled by candidates or committees acting on behalf of candidates.” The media exception also applies to cable and broadcast media. Pressler, P-365-LU705-CHI (February 22, 1996).
Where there is no allegation of ownership of the media entity or control over its editorial policies, the lack of such ownership or control normally results in the media exception being applied, thus ending the Election Officer’s inquiry. See Hoffa, P-743-IBT-SCE (May 23, 1996) (allegedly pro-Carey article in the Union Democracy Review); Pressler
P-635-LU705-CHI (February 22, 1996) (interview with Mr. Hoffa on radio station
ROCK 103.5 in Chicago); Hasegawa, P-161-LU41-MOI (October 24, 1995) (article covering Hoffa campaign in The Labor Times); Scott, P-969-IBT (October 18, 1991) (article on 1991 Carey campaign in Labor Notes); Brennan, P-971-IBT (October 16, 1991) (reprinting of Carey campaign material in article on 1991 election in the Detroit Free Press).
This program falls squarely within the media exception. Therefore, the protest is DENIED.
Peter McGourty
November 18, 1996
Page 1
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Peter V. Marks, Sr., Regional Coordinator
[1]Mr. McGourty’s original protest included an allegation that Mr. Hoffa, the Hoffa campaign, or current or former members of the Hoffa slate controlled Paramount. This allegation was subsequently withdrawn.