Card image cap

Linda McMahon's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)

Key

Official Position: Candidate addressed this issue directly by taking the Political Courage Test.
Inferred Position: Candidate refused to address this issue, but Vote Smart inferred this issue based on the candidate's public record, including statements, voting record, and special interest group endorsements.
Unknown Position: Candidate refused to address this issue, or we could not infer an answer for this candidate despite exhaustive research of their public record.
Additional Information: Click on this icon to reveal more information about this candidate's position, from their answers or Vote Smart's research.
Other or Expanded Principles & Legislative Priorities are entered exactly as candidates submit them. Vote Smart does not edit for misspelled words, punctuation or grammar.

Linda McMahon refused to tell citizens where she stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2012 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

What is the Political Courage Test?

Issue Positions

For Presidential and Congressional candidates who refuse to provide voters with their positions, Vote Smart has researched their public records to determine their likely responses. These issue positions are from 2012.

  • Linda McMahon. Abortion. 26 April 2012. “I am pro-choice; however, I oppose partial-birth abortion and federal funding of abortions unless the life of the mother is at stake.” (www.linda2010.com)
  • Lloyd Grove. Daily Beast - The Wrestler Could Win. 2 September 2010. “McMahon is no Sarah Palin Republican, but solidly in the tradition of New England moderates. Although she markets herself as a tax-hating deficit hawk, she is pro-choice on abortion (with a couple of caveats: she's against legalizing late-term "partial-birth" abortions, opposes federal funding except when the life and health of the mother are at risk, and she supports parental notification for girls 18 and under).” (votesmart.org)
  • Linda McMahon. Issue Position: National Security. 31 August 2012. “The President's decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan was momentous, and now that the policy has been put in place, it's important that we commit ourselves fully to achieving success. Our troops have to know we are committed to their success, and the Afghan people must have confidence that we are determined to succeed or they will never become effective partners in the effort to defeat terrorists. Like most Americans, I do not want to see another multi-year escalation of conflict. I'm gravely troubled about the human costs of war, and I'm apprehensive about the economic repercussions a protracted war will have on our country at a time of double-digit unemployment and record federal debt. But in my judgment, we cannot ignore the risks inherent in allowing Afghanistan to become a haven for terrorists. It's my hope that we can bring our troops home safely as soon as possible, but we should bring them home in victory, not defeat.” (votesmart.org)
  • Neil Vigdor. Greenwich Time: McMahon and Blumenthal aligned on Iraq, military tribunals but divided on Gitmo, troop withdrawal deadlines. 9 October 2010. "I absolutely do not think when we're going into an area of conflict that we state when we're going to begin withdrawal, as a senator, I would want a full briefing on exactly what the goals and strategies are in Afghanistan." (www.greenwichtime.com)
  • Linda McMahon. Faceboook: Timeline. 4 September 2012. “While Chris Murphy wants to cut defense spending, Linda will protect this vital industry. LIKE if you support the candidate who's willing to fight for Connecticut!” (www.facebook.com)
  • Christine Stuart. CT News Junkie: McMahon Calls For Middle Class Tax Cuts, But Still Mum On Entitlements. 14 March 2012. “In order to pay for the tax cuts her plan also reduces spending by 1 percent each year, but that does not include defense spending. While Connecticut’s economy relies on the government’s defense spending, entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security make up about 40 percent of the federal budget. She said she’s afraid the government is getting “perilously close” to impacting the ability of America’s military to do its job. And while there’s always areas in government spending where fat can be cut—she doesn’t believe the next two Virginia class submarines fall into that category.” (www.ctnewsjunkie.com)
  • Hugh McQuaid. CT News Junkie: McMahon Has A Plan, But UConn Economist Would Like More Details. 23 August 2012. “On the contrary, McMahon’s plan calls for closing the federal deficit by reducing spending by one percent each year. As she was touring a Berlin business Thursday McMahon said those cuts would not be across the board cutbacks, rather priority-based, targeted cuts that amount to about $38 billion a year. But McMahon has said during the course of the campaign that she would not cut defense spending or Medicare.” (www.ctnewsjunkie.com)
  • Linda McMahon. Greenwich Time -Time for a Washington Makeover. 28 June 2012. “I support sensible compromise. For example, on the question of taxes, I believe there is a common-sense position most people in Connecticut would agree upon. As long as our economy is struggling, no one's taxes should be raised. However, once the economy has improved and is back on sound footing, I would be willing to pay more in taxes, provided it is done under one condition: The money must be used to reduce the deficit. I am sure there are others in my situation who would agree.” (votesmart.org)
  • Linda McMahon. Linda McMahon Statement on President Obama's Proposal to Extend Current Tax Rates. 9 July 2012. "President Obama and I agree that Congress must extend the current tax rates for the middle class. Last week's jobs numbers reminded us that no matter what career politicians may say, our economy is still sluggish and middle-class families are hurting. We should not be raising taxes on anyone right now. This is why I made a middle-class tax cut the centerpiece of my jobs plan. I am the only candidate with a plan to cut taxes for the middle class, while Congressman Murphy has a long record of raising taxes on the middle class. Working families are doing their best to make ends meet, and the best thing Washington can do to help them out is to let them keep more of their hard-earned money." (votesmart.org)
  • Linda McMahon. Blog: Happy Cost of Government Day! 17 September 2010. “But when government grows big and intrusive, its burden becomes too heavy for working families and small businesses to bear. Take last year's "stimulus" package. We were told that government spending would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. It didn't.” (votesmart.org)
  • Linda McMahon. Issue Position: Economic Growth and Job Creation. 31 August 2012. “Washington got the stimulus dead wrong. In a matter of months, Washington spent trillions of dollars and ran it all through government bureaucracy. Instead of creating new private sector jobs, we got more job losses, bigger government and more debt -- more than $13 trillion in federal debt that will cause long-term harm to the economy. I believe government's role in economic recovery must be to help create an environment where small businesses can succeed and grow. Small businesses have historically created 70% of new jobs -- jobs that are self-sustaining and have a multiplier effect. Government jobs don't do that. To grow, small businesses need a reduced tax burden and predictability so that they can plan and make investments. The economy is trying to recover, but Washington won't let it. It is spending too much and creating tax and regulatory uncertainty that is paralyzing small businesses and stifling job creation.” (votesmart.org)
  • Linda McMahon. Linda's Plan: End Reckless Washington Spending. 31 August 2012. “If the American household can cut back, surely the federal government can find a way to save 1% – just one penny for every dollar. Congress and the President should agree to cut 1% from the federal budget each year until balance is reached. This 1% reduction would be a real cut in spending, not just a reduction in the rate of growth of government. Once a balanced budget is reached, then spending could again be allowed to grow, but at rates consistent with the growth in the overall economy so that relative fiscal balance is maintained. A 1% reduction in spending does not necessarily mean a 1% across-the-board cut. Proper budgeting requires setting priorities and making decisions – it is about making trade-offs between competing wants and limited resources.” (www.lindasplan.com)
  • Mary E. O’Leary. New Hampshire Register: Linda McMahon won’t rule out Ryan approach to Medicare. 13 August 2012. “The U.S. Senate candidate said there are “parts of the plan that I think are good, but I would not vote for it if it is going to cut (Medicare) benefits to our seniors. Look when he talks about reducing spending, reducing the size of government there is probably a lot in there to find and to support …,” she said. McMahon throughout her campaign has not said how she would tackle reform of entitlements, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. She favors cutting 1 percent of the federal budget annually, or about $38 billion, but has not said where that would be and she does not include defense spending.” (ctsenate2012.nhregister.com)
  • Linda McMahon. Linda McMahon Statement Regarding Today's Jobs Report. 3 August 2012. "Today's jobs report is a combination of good and bad news. The fact that 163,000 jobs have been added is positive, but the jump in the unemployment rate is another sign that the economic policies that career politicians have put into place are simply not working. Forty-two consecutive months of unemployment over 8% is unacceptable.Chris Murphy has held public office for nearly 5,000 days and has yet to put forward a substantive plan to create jobs. Murphy's $781 billion stimulus was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%, but it obviously failed. Worse, he continues to say that his plan to create jobs is still a "work in progress.'” (votesmart.org)
  • Linda McMahon. Linda's Plan: Leveling the Playing Field. 31 August 2012. “As suggested in the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, we should reduce the federal corporate income tax rate. I propose moving the rate from 35% to 25% to be more competitive with the rest of the world and keep jobs here in America. Moreover, we should simplify the tax code for all businesses by enacting a top rate of 25% for business income, no matter the size or structure. ALLOW BUSINESSES TO DEDUCT 100% OF CAPITAL EXPENSES This stimulates investment in American businesses and increases the productivity of American workers. Make this permanent so people can plan their businesses and create jobs.” (www.lindasplan.com)
  • Linda McMahon. Linda's Plan. 11 April 2012. “Create a 25% top bracket for all business income, thereby reducing taxes on businesses and entrepreneurs.” (www.lindasplan.com)
  • Linda McMahon. Economic Growth and Job Creation. 26 April 2012. “I believe government’s role in economic recovery must be to help create an environment where small businesses can succeed and grow. Small businesses have historically created 70% of new jobs — jobs that are self-sustaining and have a multiplier effect. Government jobs don’t do that. To grow, small businesses need a reduced tax burden and predictability so that they can plan and make investments.” (www.linda2010.com)
  • Linda McMahon. Issues: Education. 31 August 2012. “No Child Left Behind was passed with good intentions (the goal of achieving reading comprehension for all American children), but it’s time to revisit the one-size-fits-all formula for public education and direct more federal dollars and authority to the states, towns and municipalities that are closer to the students and know what is best for their schools. It is in our children’s best interest to have public education administered at the state and local levels, not by Congress.” (www.lindaforsenate2012.com)
  • Linda McMahon. Issue Position: Education. “As a former member of the Connecticut State School Board, improving public education is very dear to my heart. I believe that every child should have an opportunity for the best education we can provide. We have to continue to provide education that will close the achievement gap for lower income students. I am a strong supporter of the secondary school reform, which is underway in Connecticut. We must require high standards and accountability for teachers and school administrators, and I support the current review of the teacher evaluation process that the State Board is undertaking. I believe in local control. I am an advocate for choice through charter schools.” (votesmart.org)
  • Linda McMahon. Issue Position: Develop American Energy Resources. 26 April 2012. “Current regulatory barriers only permit production on less than 6% of federal lands onshore and 2.2% offshore. Permitting must be adjusted to allow faster access to these areas without compromising environmental safeguards.” (votesmart.org)
  • Deirdre Shesgreen. The CT Mirror: Climate change: Candidates differ on causes, vague on cures. 27 September 2010. “Blumenthal and McMahon, for example, sharply diverge on the question of offshore drilling […] McMahon said she opposed the moratorium, arguing that it's "stopping any and all production and taking jobs." […] Furthermore, McMahon said, the government should allow a significant expansion of offshore drilling and energy exploration in other parts of the U.S. "I believe that as part of a national energy policy, as well as energy independence, we should as a country explore our natural resources in an environmentally responsible way," she said.” (ctmirror.com)
  • Linda McMahon. Issue Position: Energy & Environment. “I recognize the fundamental importance of protecting the environment, and I am committed to greater environmental sustainability, cleaner air, energy efficiency and conservation. Because of this, I support efforts to develop and expand alternatives and renewable forms of energy including solar, wind, hydro, nuclear and natural gas. I believe dependence on foreign oil supplies is unsustainable in the long-term, and I believe it creates national security risks. I support environmentally responsible domestic oil exploration offshore, but I believe states should decide whether to allow drilling in their waters.” (votesmart.org)
  • Linda McMahon. Economic Growth and Job Creation. “Offshore exploration creates jobs and increases energy supplies without cost to the taxpayer. It will create revenues for financially strapped state governments and increase revenues for federal governments.” (www.linda2010.com)
  • Deirdre Shesgreen. The CT Mirror: Climate change: Candidates differ on causes, vague on cures. 27 September 2010. “McMahon, the Republican nominee and former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, says the "science is mixed" on what has caused global warming, although she does not dispute that the climate is indeed changing. […] "I don't believe at this time, given where we are with our economy, that cap-and-trade is the right thing," McMahon said. But she was vague about what steps she would favor, suggesting only that she might support offering government incentives, such as tax deductions, for companies that voluntarily purchase and install the technology to reduce emissions.” (ctmirror.com)
  • Linda McMahon. Energy and Environment. 12 April 2012. “I oppose cap-and-trade because it will increase energy costs and Connecticut already pays the highest electricity rates in the continental U.S.” (www.linda2010.com)
  • Linda McMahon. Second Amendment. 26 April 2012. “America has a long history of gun ownership, and I fully support 2nd Amendment rights.” (www.linda2010.com)
  • Linda McMahon. Twitter: @Linda_McMahon. 18 July 2012. “RT @darientimes: McMahon: US has its own 2nd Amendment rights. We cannot be part of agreements at UN that affect our sovereignty” (twitter.com)
  • National Rifle Association. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Endorsements. 04/18/2012. National Rifle Association endorsed Linda McMahon in the 2010 general election. (votesmart.org)
  • Linda McMahon. Issue Position: End Job-Killing Regulations. 1 January 2012. “REPEAL OBAMACARE Repealing this costly and intrusive government mandate will cut the deficit by $701 billion. We should replace it with a market-based proposal that reduces costs to individuals and increases competition, allowing consumers more freedom to choose their health care” (votesmart.org)
  • Linda McMahon. Illegal Immigration. “I support legal immigration and I believe much of this country’s strength and prosperity has come as a result of the immense contributions immigrants have made. While I believe immigration reform is needed, I believe reform starts with securing the border. I'm opposed to amnesty.” (www.linda2010.com)
  • Linda McMahon. ConnecticutPlus.com exclusive: Interview with U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon. 6 August 2012. “I think that’s just one piece of immigration reform. We do need, I think, overall immigration reform. The act that the President just enacted, I thought was unfortunate from the same point of the timing and I think the motive. I think it’s politically motivated. While I think we need overall [immigration] reform, I don’t think we should put folks who are not citizens ahead of our citizens here in the United States. I think we need to reinforce our borders and prevent more illegal immigration into this country. However, we are a country of immigrants and we should encourage those to come in legally. There are students who come here are and who are educated here in our country and then they leave with a lot of skills that we could clearly use. I want us to make it possible for them to stay. Part of an overhaul of immigration, I think we need to have different kinds of temporary work visas” to the question “What do you think of the recent decision of Obama’s administration on the issue of illegal immigration and what do you think should be done to fix the immigration system in the nation?” (www.lindaforsenate2012.com)
  • Deirdre Shesgreen. The CT Mirror: When it comes to social issues, the difference is in the details. 14 October 2010. “McMahon has not been entirely clear on DOMA. When asked about the law in an interview in March, she said, "I do think it's a state's right issue." When pressed, she added, "I don't think there should be a federal law." But Patru now says she doesn't support repealing the law.” (ctmirror.org)
  • Lisa Bigelow. Woodbury-Middlebury Patch: Is Linda McMahon the Ideal Moderate Republican? 28 August 2012. “She supports openly-gay military service, and believes same sex marriage should be a state’s rights issue.” (woodbury-middlebury.patch.com)
  • Lloyd Grove. The Daily Beast: The Wrestler Could Win. 2 September 2010. “She endorses the right of states, like Connecticut, to legalize gay marriage — a position socially more liberal than President Obama’s.” (www.thedailybeast.com)
  • Linda McMahon. Issue Position: National Security. 4 September 2012. “One of the greatest responsibilities our government has is to provide security for the American people. I believe that we should have a strong national defense second to none. In this post-9/11 world, national security includes both domestic and foreign threats. The breakdown in communications among U.S. intelligence agencies that allowed the attempted Christmas Day bombing to occur is unacceptable and must be corrected. At the same time, we must fight the terrorists abroad rather than at home.” (votesmart.org)
  • Daniela Altimari. Hartford Courant: Linda McMahon, Social Security and the federal debt. "She believes any efforts to strengthen these programs must have broad bipartisan support, and she will not support any efforts to strengthen these programs that does not have broad bipartisan support. She's also opposed to and would not support any efforts to privatize these public programs." (blogs.courant.com)
  • Mary Ellen Godin. My Record-Journal: Meriden seniors question McMahon. 23 July 2012. “McMahon came to the Meriden Senior Citizens Center to introduce herself and discuss her background and her plan to strengthen the economy. She said after the event that the seniors were “very worried” their Social Security would be cut and they would lose their current health care coverage. “I reassured them I would not support any legislation that would eliminate their benefits or for those approaching it,” McMahon said.” (www.myrecordjournal.com)

Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.

arrow_upward