Posted on 07/02/2007 4:17:47 PM PDT by AFA-Michigan
Some anti-pornography groups are demanding answers as to how much presidential candidate Mitt Romney knew about the Marriott hotel chain's profits of pornography sales during his nearly ten years on the Board of Directors in the 1990's.
The hotel chain is one of many that offer pay per view sex videos for sale through in-room entertainment.
Though Marriott doesn't release their revenues when it comes to X-rated videos, industry analysts estimate it is in the tens of millions of dollars.
During his run for President, Romney has campaigned on a platform of "family values" recently telling a graduation class, "Pornography and violence poison our music and movies and television and video games."
Some of these conservative grassroots activists want to know whether he spoke up or tried to put a stop to Marriott's business dealings back then.
Phil Burress, founder of Citizens for Community Values, has been fighting hotel chains for decades on this issue. He tells The Brody File that every month a group of roughly 15 anti-pornography leaders meet in Washington to discuss the latest happenings.
Mitt Romney's Marriott connection has come up repeatedly. "Ever since he announced for president, it's been a topic of discussion."
Mitt Romney's campaign told CBN the following: "Governor Romney's role as board member was in an advisory capacity on financial matters related to the company and, obviously, he did not have a role in the day-to-day operations or decisions of individual franchise holders."
John Harmer, president of the anti-pornography group The Lighted Candle Society and the former Lieutenant Governor of California under Ronald Reagan isn't buying it. He wants to hear more.
"My attitude toward board members is that they are fully responsible. They knew exactly what they were receiving. I don't think any board member under any rationale could claim ignorance. You're either a board member or not. I can't imagine a board member going a full year and not receiving a revenue report from the company."
Previous news accounts researched by The Brody File show that Romney was paid more than $100,000 per year while on the board of Marriott.
When he left in 2002, J.W. Marriott, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of Marriott International, called him, "an active, hands-on Director… From his first days on our Board nine years ago, Mitt has been an extraordinarily effective director and visionary leader."
Mitt Romney has a very close relationship with the Marriott family.
Romney's father, George Romney was best friends with Marriott's original founder J. Willard Marriott. Mitt Romney's first name is Willard, in honor of the Marriott founder. The Marriott family gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Mitt Romney's campaign when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1994.
So far during Romney's presidential run, they have given close to $80,000.
When asked about Romney's time on the board of directors, Marriott Spokesman Roger Conner told CBN, "We don't comment on board level matters."
Conner wouldn't speculate whether Romney had any knowledge about the fight to get rid of pornography in room entertainment or whether he did anything about it. He would only say, "This area would not have been a board area…"
Conner is quick to point out that voting on in room entertainment packages would not have been something the board would have voted on. Rather, he says, this is an operations matter.
Moreover, he says that many of Marriott hotels are either owned by others or franchised.
"We have to respect the business decisions and needs of owners. The guest has a choice to opt out of the adult entertainment options."
The Brody File made repeated calls to LodgeNet, one of the main providers for hotel in-room entertainment. We asked whether hotels have the option to opt out of the X-rated films if they would like.
They did not return our phone calls. On their website, it does say that they work "closely with its hotel partners to determine the best mix of titles to maximize viewing levels. Unlike most systems, On Command Video has the ability to tailor the programming at individual hotels to match the demographic profile of that particular property's guests.
Conservative pro-family groups have been putting pressure on hotel chains for years to change their ways.
In a letter to Bill Johnson of the American Decency Association, Marriott's Chairman of the Board wrote in June of 2000, "The in-room entertainment operators who provide our systems rely upon a certain volume of movie types in order to be economically viable. If we were to eliminate the R and non rated offerings, the systems would not be economic."
Industry analysts estimate that roughly 60% of hotel chains provide in room entertainment with the X-rated pornography movie option. Yet, some have decided to drop the adult videos.
In 1999, Omni Hotels announced that it would remove adult pay-per-view movies from its guest room televisions. It took a financial hit but Peter Strebel, Omni Hotels vice president of marketing, said in a press release at the time, "
"Money is not the issue in this matter. Not all business decisions should be fiscally driven. We believe that this is the right thing to do; the right thing for Omni Hotels, our associates and our customers."
Gary Glenn, a well known pro-family activist in Michigan recently sent an email to Justin Hart, one of Mitt Romney's Faith and Values Steering Committee members. Hart also works for the The Lighted Candle Society.
Glenn writes, "It is a matter of record that during the time Romney served as a 'hands on' member of its board of directors, the Marriott Corporation sold tens of millions of dollars worth of hardcore pornographic videos… as a candidate for president, Gov. Romney has a bully pulpit from which he could greatly assist your organization and others in applying sufficient public pressure to Marriott and other white-collar porn peddlers to 'dry up some of that funding'…we encourage you to urge the Romney campaign to initiate public discussion of the above concerns and questions in a proactive fashion, for which he may receive some credit for initiative and leadership on an issue that speaks both to his personal and political integrity and to his trustworthiness should he be elected as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States."
The Brody File contacted Justin Hart who said "In this important fight against pornography there are those people who are determined to make enemies and effect zero change and there are those who propose to use their influence to create serious lasting change - Romney is in this latter camp…pure societal turnaround can only happen when people of influence find the right moment in time to lead change…In my opinion, Romney's record shows that he could very well effect that change to happen. The fact that he included a serious anti-pornography group on his Faith and Values committee suggests this as well."
That's not satisfying to Phil Buress. He wants answers from Romney. "This man is very knowledgeable about the issues, but for him to not know anything about what Marriott is selling, I found that very interesting."
The Romney campaign won't go beyond their initial statement.
Instead they point out that Governor Romney is actively talking about pornography issues and today's culture wars.
In a speech Romney gave nearly three months ago, he said, "I have great faith in the American people. I have faith in our children, and in our grandchildren. But at the same time, I am deeply troubled by the culture that surrounds them today.I'd like to keep pornography from coming up on kid's computers. I'd like to keep drugs off the streets. I'd like to see less violence and sex on TV and in movies and in video games…I believe that the most important work being done to strengthen America's future is the work that is being done within the 4 walls of the American home."
None of that stuff necessarily refutes what was posted. Masterful copy & paste job, though.
That's an ignorant statement.
Being chosen as one of the twelve apostles didn't mean they attained infallibility or possessed it within themselves. Every one of the apostles was a flawed individual. Jesus had to admonish the faithful ones to keep their egos in check right up until the very end of his life. He even once referred to Peter as "Satan!"
Any one of them could have betrayed him, but in the end, only one did (and it only took one). But that wasn't because Jesus made the wrong choice, it was because Judas Iscariot blew it for himself by -- in the words of James -- losing control of his desire, and letting it turn to sin.
Video of interview with former Attorney General Ed Meese, who chaired the President’s Commission on Pornography, which came to be known as the Meese Commission.
Go to: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/flash/423_Meese_preview.htm
Using the bar at bottom, fast forward to 3:18 of the interview.
Sorry for the timeline whiplash, which will obviously be a shock for some posting on this subject. This was back when being a “conservative” — at least as defined by the Reagan Adminstration — meant being against the distribution of pornography.
yada yada yada
As much as I’m not a Romney fan (Hunter and Thompson much preferred), this is a really lame attack.
Hold on, there, pardner -- this issue has nothing to do with "law enforcement." Don't be so disingenuous.
Canticle, obviously not having read the original article posted, asks:
“How do you know (Romney) didn’t (ojbect to Marriott selling porn)? How do you know his objection wasn’t the reason Marriott wrote the letter?”
Easy. First, the Romney campaign claims he had nothing to do with the issue. (Read the article, Tickle.)
Second, why would Romney objecting lead Bill Marriott to write a letter to the American Decency Association defending the company’s porn sales?
First, Tickle’s hysterical about hammers, Bible, and bullhorns. Now, as she’s coming down from that episode, she’s just not thinking clearly yet.
Oh! You wound me with your rapier wit! I surrender, I can't fight a logical argument like that!
“This issue has nothing to do with ‘law enforcement.’ Don’t be so disingenuous.”
Good grief, Smithee. How about doing us a favor and actually reading the thread before making such an inane comment.
Multiple posts upstream, starting in the original itself, regarding the enforcement of federal obscenity laws.
Go read, and come back later.
Sorry, theres a disconnect here... I am no longer saying thats the case, I didn't realize that there were major chains that didn't sell porn. I was, however, responding to the notion that in very competitive industries little things can make a difference sometimes.
I have Comcast. Yes, they have PPV porn. No, I've never watched it.
Tickle? What does that mean?
I think you should be more concerned with your own kinks than everyone else’s.
Your name calling is weird and creepy.
"Some 15% of the electorate in the United States tell pollsters they are allied with the Christian Right, and it is an important voting block within the U.S. Republican Party."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right
Can-Tickle, in an astounding post, writes: “Your name calling is weird and creepy.”
That’s rich, coming from somebody who a couple dozen posts upstream thought it entirely appropriate to call me (and presumably anyone else in America who might agree on this issue) “Taliban” and “communist.”
It’s that kettle thing, right, Canticle?
You have a problem.
I notice you did not quote Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest of Americans. His passions were quite unrestrained when it came to women. He also attended church regularly, but only to maintain expedient business prospects for himself. Was he an immoral man? On what basis do you presume to judge him, or any other man who may have personal vices, but yet acts morally and ethically, or even heroically in the public sphere. I do not believe it is any of your or CBN's business what lonely businessmen or women watch in the privacy of their hotel rooms. And I do not believe the Founders whom you cite would approve of such puritanical restrictions as you advocate.
I notice you did not quote Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest of Americans. His passions were quite unrestrained when it came to women. He also attended church regularly, but only to maintain expedient business prospects for himself. Was he an immoral man? On what basis do you presume to judge him, or any other man who may have personal vices, but yet acts morally and ethically, or even heroically in the public sphere. I do not believe it is any of your or CBN's business what lonely businessmen or women watch in the privacy of their hotel rooms. And I do not believe the Founders whom you cite would approve of such puritanical restrictions as you advocate.
Go read, and come back later.
Uh-uh, Mr. Smarmy. I don't have the time to read 100+ replies, and I shouldn't have to when you are right here on the thread as I type. You posted the thing, you answer the questions.
Seeing that Romney wants to be Chief LEO but would have only at his disposal FEDERAL agencies, of what FEDERAL law has Marriott run afoul?
Don't give me that compost about "local Cincinnati prosecutors," and don't give me that bull about what "pro-family activists believe" are illegal distribution. You have an indictment to back up your "activists'" quasi-legal opinions?
It looks more like you and your ilk would be forgiving if some of that filthy Romney lucre was thrown your way, as you wrote above in your questions for Mitt:
I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that an offer is being made: Pay up, and this problem will go away. There's a word for this: "Shakedown." Sounds worthy of Jesse Jackson.
("5. Do you feel morally obligated to return to the Marriot Corporation -- or better yet, donate to a charitable ministry such as The Lighted Candle Society that assists the victims of pornography and sex abuse -- whatever percentage of your compensation, if any, from your board service or stock holdings that is reasonably commensurate with the percentage of the company's overall revenues produced by its sale of hardcore pornographic material?)
“I do not believe it is any of your or CBN’s business what lonely businessmen or women watch in the privacy of their hotel rooms.”
How about child porn, Montag? Is that also a privacy thing, in your opinion?
And don’t come back with the lame, “well, child porn is against the law.”
So is obscenity. It’s either a matter of privacy or a matter of law or a matter of morality.
Which consistent standard do you apply, if any?
You just hate the whole idea of freedom, don’t you? If you don’t like the idea of being in a hotel room with a TV that might have been used to watch soft-core porn at some point in the past, then go somewhere else. Some people object to bibles in hotel rooms. You’re just as bad as they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.