|
Kirsten Gillibrand on Corporations
Democratic Senator (NY); Democratic Candidate for President (withdrawn)
|
|
Reverse the 2017 corporate income tax cut
Gillibrand on Corporate Income Taxes: Reverse the 2017 corporate cut.TWO CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Kamala Harris.
Some candidates, such as Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and author Marianne Williamson,
say they want to get rid of the 2017 cut entirely.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand supports a 0.1% tax on the sale of stocks, bonds and derivatives. Author Marianne Williamson wants to eliminate preferential tax treatment of exchange traded funds.
Source: Politico "2020Dems on the Issues"
, Jul 17, 2019
Differentiate between capitalism (good) and greed (bad)
There's a big difference between capitalism and greed. All that we're trying to change is when companies care more about profits than about people. If you're talking about gun violence, it's the greed of the NRA and gun manufacturers that make
progress impossible. It's the greed of the insurance companies and drug companies, when we want to get health care as a right and not a privilege. There need not be disagreement in the party because, in truth, we want healthy capitalism.
Source: June Democratic Primary debate (second night in Miami)
, Jun 27, 2019
Access to capital for small business will create jobs
Gillibrand says she doesn't think it's possible to tell how many jobs a politician has created, adding, "The number one thing we should be doing to create jobs in this state--in this country right now--is getting access to capital into our small
businesses."DioGuardi counters, "Not only did you not create jobs, we've lost many jobs. You've got to be aggressive about what you do to change that and one of the things is: we're in a toxic environment in this state--mainly because of your party."
Source: Fox News 23 coverage of 2010 N. Y. Senate debate
, Oct 21, 2010
Nine years as Philip Morris defense counsel
Gillibrand has deliberately buried the pivotal role she chose to play in defending Philip Morris, the world's largest cigarette company, against charges of criminal perjury and fraud arising out of company executives' implausible testimony to Congress.
This was made easier because in those days, before her marriage, she was known as Tina Rutnick.Rutnick had her work cut out for her representing Big Tobacco. The big boys at Philip Morris claimed to have absolutely no knowledge of either the
addictive or cancer-causing qualities of tobacco. Only one problem: Their own internal documents contradicted their claims. And Rutnick's efforts as an attorney helped them to keep incriminating documents from the prosecutors.
Those nine years of
Gillibrand's career have been completely whitewashed from her biography. Amazingly, her pro-tobacco work never surfaced in her two congressional races; it wasn't until after she was appointed to the Senate that the information was disclosed.
Source: Take Back America, by Dick Morris, p.186-187
, Apr 13, 2010
Voted YES on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation.
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation [and as part of that process, fully disclosing executive compensation]. Proponents support voting YES because:
We should not deprive the public, the stockholders, from being able to do anything meaningful once they find out about scandalous levels of executive compensation or board compensation. Everyone talks about the corporate board as the remedy. But the board is often a part of the problem, being paid huge amounts of money for showing up once or twice a year at meetings.
Give the stockholders a meaningful remedy. Once you get the mandatory disclosure put in place by previous legislation, we are saying the stockholders should be allowed to have a referendum on that and not have a runaround by the board.
Opponents support voting NO because:
This vote is based on mischaracterization--it is an unnecessary amendment. The opportunity for these kinds of votes already exists within the structure of corporate governance right now. A good company from Georgia, AFLAC, went ahead and already has these nonbinding shareholder votes. But there is a difference between having individuals in the private sector, shareholders and individuals outside of the mandating of government to have it occur and have government come in with its heavy hand and say, this is exactly what you need to do because we know best. Our constituents know better how to act and how to relate to corporations than Washington.
Reference: Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act;
Bill H R 1257
; vote number 2007-244
on Apr 20, 2007
Screen imports & ban lead in children's products.
Gillibrand co-sponsored screening imports & ban lead in children's products
A bill to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission to provide greater protection for children's products, to improve the screening of non-compliant consumer products, to improve the effectiveness of consumer product recall programs, and for other purposes.
- Requires third party certification of, and provides for tracking and record keeping regarding, children's products.
- [Increase] reporting of substantial product hazards and corrective action plans.
- Requires certain manufacturers or distributors to post an escrow or proof of insurance to cover recalls.
- Allows enforcement by state attorneys general and provides public and private sector whistleblower protections.
- Bans children's products containing lead and lowers the allowable lead content in paint.
- Requires a study of preventable injuries and deaths of minority children related to consumer products.
-
Requires a cost-benefit analysis under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act.
- Requires development of a risk assessment methodology regarding imports.
- Requires publication of a list of product defects that constitute a substantial product hazard.
- Conditions importation of a consumer product on the manufacturer's compliance with inspection and record keeping requirements.
- Requires a database on violations of consumer product safety rules to be used to determine whether a container being imported contains consumer products that are in violation of a consumer product safety standard and whether action should be taken under imported products provisions.
House version is H.R.4040.
Source: CPSC Reform Act (S.2663) 08-S2663 on Feb 25, 2008
Expand lending caps for credit unions to small business.
Gillibrand co-sponsored Small Business Lending Enhancement Act
Congressional Summary:
- Amends the Federal Credit Union Act to limit loans outstanding to either 1.75 times the net worth, or 12.25% of the total assets of the credit union.
- Authorizes insured credit unions to make business loans up to 27.5 % of the total assets of the credit union, if the credit union meets specified safety and soundness criteria.
- Directs the development of a tiered approval process, including lending standards, under which an insured credit union gradually increases the amount of member business lending in a manner that is consistent with safe and sound operations.
Supporter's Comments: (by CUNA, a pro-credit union organization)
America's small businesses are the engine of growth of our nation's economy. The effects of the financial crisis of the past few years have spread to all types of lending, resulting in a reduction in the availability
of business credit. At a time when banks are withdrawing credit from America's small businesses, credit unions have actually been expanding credit to small businesses, but with more credit unions approaching the cap, this growth is threatened. Congress should enact legislation which increases the credit union member business lending cap from 12.25% of assets to 27.5% for well-capitalized credit unions
Opponent's Comments: (by the Independent Community Banks of America, Nov. 15, 2012)
The tax-subsidized credit union industry is pressing for doubling the statutory cap Congress placed on member business loans. Shifting assets from tax-paying banks to tax-exempt credit unions would reduce tax revenue to the government; the CBO estimates the revenue impact at $354 million over 10 years. We believe that banks are currently meeting the needs of credit-worthy businesses, as substantiated by numerous business surveys.
Source: HR1418 /S2231 12-S2231 on Mar 22, 2012
Rated 83% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record.
Gillibrand scores 83% by UFCW on labor-management issues
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) is North America's Neighborhood Union--1.3 million members with UFCW locals in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and Canada. Our members work in supermarkets, drug stores, retail stores, meatpacking and meat processing plants, food processing plants, and manufacturing workers who make everything from fertilizer to shoes. We number over 60,000 strong with 25,000 workers in chemical production and 20,000 who work in garment and textile industries.
The UFCW Senate scorecard is based on these key votes: - American Jobs Act (+)
- Balanced Budget Amendment (-)
- Rejecting Cut, Cap, and Balance (+)
- Repeal Health Care Law (-)
- Sen. Am. 14 Wicker Am. to S 223, excluding unionization at TSA (-)
- Sen. Am. 740 McCain Am. to HR 2112, defunding TAA (-)
- Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act (TAA) (+)
Source: UFCW website 12-UFCW-S on May 2, 2012
Restrict corporate use of consumer mandatory arbitration.
Gillibrand signed restricting corporate use of consumer mandatory arbitration
Excerpts from Letter from 35 Senators to the CFPB: We write to commend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for its proposed rule to limit the use of mandatory, pre-dispute ("forced") arbitration clauses in consumer financial product and service contracts. Every day, Americans across the country are forced to sign away their constitutional right to access the courts as a condition of purchasing common products and services like credit cards, checking accounts, and private student loans. Binding arbitration is a privatized justice system that studies show consistently produces results that favor large corporations and offers no meaningful appeals process. As a result, consumers are left without redress, and companies are unaccountable for their unscrupulous behavior.
Opposing freedom argument: (Cato Institute, "ATLA monopoly," May 2002): The trial lawyers new goal is to tighten their monopoly grip on the court system, and prevent the rest
of us from choosing a more efficient means of resolving our disputes. Arbitration is simply private court. Lawyers with a vested interest in a monopoly court system are trying to stop the arbitration business from developing. But there's nothing forced or mandatory about it. Contracts are the result of choice. People should be free to choose for themselves what contracts to make and what rights to give up.
Opposing economic argument: (Heritage Foundation, "The Unfair Attack on Arbitration," July 17, 2013): Any study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should examine whether a limit on arbitration would:
- Drive up the costs of consumer products;
- Decrease the ability of consumers or businesses to pursue claims, particularly low-value claims;
- Increase the volume of frivolous litigation filed just to obtain settlements; and
- Decrease the availability of consumer products.
Source: Letter to CFPB Director 17LTR-CFPB on Aug 4, 2016
|
Other candidates on Corporations: |
Kirsten Gillibrand on other issues: |
NY Gubernatorial: Andrew Cuomo Bill de Blasio Cynthia Nixon George Pataki Howie Hawkins John DeFrancisco Kathy Hochul Larry Sharpe Marc Molinaro Mike Bloomberg Rob Astorino Zephyr Teachout NY Senatorial: Alex Merced Charles Schumer Chele Farley Dave Webber Marc Molinaro Scott Noren Wendy Long
NY politicians
NY Archives
|
Senate races 2019-20:
AK:
Sullivan(R,incumbent)
vs.Gross(I)
AL:
Jones(D,incumbent)
vs.Sessions(R)
vs.Moore(R)
vs.Mooney(R)
vs.Rogers(D)
vs.Tuberville(R)
vs.Byrne(R)
vs.Merrill(R)
AR:
Cotton(R,incumbent)
vs.Mahony(D)
vs.Whitfield(I)
vs.Harrington(L)
AZ:
McSally(R,incumbent)
vs.Kelly(D)
CO:
Gardner(R,incumbent)
vs.Hickenlooper(D)
vs.Madden(D)
vs.Baer(D)
vs.Walsh(D)
vs.Johnston(D)
vs.Romanoff(D)
vs.Burnes(D)
vs.Williams(D)
DE:
Coons(D,incumbent)
vs.Scarane(D)
GA-2:
Isakson(R,resigned)
Loeffler(R,appointed)
vs.Lieberman(D)
vs.Collins(R)
vs.Carter(D)
GA-6:
Perdue(R,incumbent)
vs.Tomlinson(D)
vs.Ossoff(D)
vs.Terry(D)
IA:
Ernst(R,incumbent)
vs.Graham(D)
vs.Mauro(D)
vs.Greenfield(D)
ID:
Risch(R,incumbent)
vs.Harris(D)
vs.Jordan(D)
IL:
Durbin(D,incumbent)
vs.Curran(R)
vs.Stava-Murray(D)
KS:
Roberts(R,retiring)
vs.LaTurner(R)
vs.Wagle(R)
vs.Kobach(R)
vs.Bollier(D)
vs.Lindstrom(R)
vs.Grissom(D)
vs.Marshall(R)
KY:
McConnell(R,incumbent)
vs.McGrath(D)
vs.Morgan(R)
vs.Cox(D)
vs.Tobin(D)
vs.Booker(D)
LA:
Cassidy(R,incumbent)
vs.Pierce(D)
|
MA:
Markey(D,incumbent)
vs.Liss-Riordan(D)
vs.Ayyadurai(R)
vs.Kennedy(D)
ME:
Collins(R,incumbent)
vs.Sweet(D)
vs.Gideon(D)
vs.Rice(D)
MI:
Peters(D,incumbent)
vs.James(R)
MN:
Smith(D,incumbent)
vs.Carlson(D)
vs.Lewis(R)
vs.Overby(G)
MS:
Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent)
vs.Espy(D)
vs.Bohren(D)
MT:
Daines(R,incumbent)
vs.Bullock(D)
vs.Collins(D)
vs.Mues(D)
vs.Driscoll(R)
vs.Giese(L)
NC:
Tillis(R,incumbent)
vs.E.Smith(D)
vs.S.Smith(R)
vs.Cunningham(D)
vs.Tucker(R)
vs.Mansfield(D)
NE:
Sasse(R,incumbent)
vs.Janicek(R)
NH:
Shaheen(D,incumbent)
vs.Martin(D)
vs.Bolduc(R)
vs.O'Brien(f)
NJ:
Booker(D,incumbent)
vs.Singh(R)
vs.Meissner(R)
NM:
Udall(D,retiring)
vs.Clarkson(R)
vs.Oliver(D)
vs.Lujan(D)
vs.Rich(R)
OK:
Inhofe(R,incumbent)
vs.Workman(D)
OR:
Merkley(D,incumbent)
vs.Romero(R)
vs.Perkins(R)
RI:
Reed(D,incumbent)
vs.Waters(R)
SC:
Graham(R,incumbent)
vs.Tinubu(D)
vs.Harrison(D)
SD:
Rounds(R,incumbent)
vs.Borglum(R)
vs.Ahlers(D)
TN:
Alexander(R,incumbent)
vs.Sethi(R)
vs.Mackler(D)
vs.Hagerty(R)
TX:
Cornyn(R,incumbent)
vs.Hegar(D)
vs.Hernandez(D)
vs.Bell(D)
vs.Ramirez(D)
vs.West(D)
VA:
Warner(D,incumbent)
vs.Taylor(R)
vs.Gade(R)
WV:
Capito(R,incumbent)
vs.Swearengin(D)
vs.Ojeda(D)
WY:
Enzi(R,incumbent)
vs.Ludwig(D)
vs.Lummis(R)
|
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare
Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Group Ratings
|
Contact info: Email Contact Form Fax Number: 202-228-0282 Mailing Address: Senate Office SR-478, Washington, DC 20510
|
Page last updated: Jul 15, 2020