Joe Sestak on Corporations Democratic Senate Challenger; former Navy Admiral

Roll back corporate tax cuts by at least half

FIVE CANDIDATES HAVE SIMILAR VIEWS: Joseph Biden, Jr.; John Delaney; Amy Klobuchar; Seth Moulton; Beto O`Rourke

Klobuchar and Moulton want to raise the corporate income tax rate to 25% from its current 21%. Former Rep. Joe Sestak advocates "rolling back at least half" of the corporate tax cut.

Strengthen antitrust laws; stop corporate welfare

Priorities:
• Tax fairness, so corporations pay their fair share.
• Strengthen antitrust laws.
• Stop "corporate welfare," subsidizing industries such as fossil fuels and industrial agri-business, among so many others.
• Establish that personal data belongs to a person, not to a corporation or government.
• Develop appropriate regulations of nanotechnology, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence, because while these may have great potential, they are also ripe for abuse..

Favors increasing corporate tax rate & restoring estate tax

Small manufacturing is on cusp of a comeback, if helped

But small businesses need more help accessing capital through the Small Business Administration, he said, particularly those in rural areas and veteran-owned businesses. Reducing regulations on smaller companies and providing more money for infrastructure repairs also could boost job growth, Sestak added.

The plaque says 'We the People,' not 'We the Corporations'

In closing remarks, Sestak repeated his people approach in this election. "It is we the people. Not we the corporations; nor we Wall Street."

Voted YES on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation.

Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act: Amends the Securities Exchange Act to require that any proxy for an annual shareholders meeting provide for a separate shareholder vote to approve executive compensation for named executive officers. The shareholder vote shall not be:

1. binding on the corporation
2. construed as overruling a board decision, or as creating or implying any additional fiduciary duty by the board; or
3. construed as restricting or limiting shareholder ability to place executive compensation proposals within proxy materials.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. BARNEY FRANK (D, MA-4): The amount of wages is irrelevant to the SEC. What this bill explicitly aims at is the practice whereby people are given bonuses that pay off if the gamble pays off, but don't lose you anything if it doesn't. That is, there is a wide consensus that this incentivizes excessive risk.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SPENCER BACHUS (R, AL-6): True, the first 6 pages of the bill give the owners, the shareholders, a non-binding vote on the pay of top executives. But then come the next 8 pages, the switch, which gives the regulators the power to decide appropriate compensation for not only just top executives but for all employees of all financial institutions above $1 billion in assets and all without regard for the shareholders' prior approval. So under the guise of empowering shareholders, it is, in fact, the government that is empowered. And, finally, on page 15, the bill designates those same government entities which regulated AIG, Countrywide, and collectively failed to prevent the worst financial calamity since the Great Depression. This bill continues the Democrat majority's tendency to go to the default solution for every problem: create a government bureaucracy to make decisions better left to private citizens and private corporations.

Voted YES on allowing stockholder voting on 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.

Screen 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.