Ed Markey on Corporations Democratic Representative (MA-7)

90% tax on executive bonuses at companies receiving TARP

Markey could bid fair claim to being farther ahead of the curve on the financial crisis than almost any elected official in Washington [having previously] introduced the Derivatives Market Reform Act of 1994.

Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ (D, NY-12): We need jobs that cannot be shipped overseas and will not evaporate in the next cycle of boom and bust. But those jobs aren't going to appear out of thin air. They need to be created. By expanding existing industries and unlocking new ones, H.R. 2965 will generate the jobs we need. Job creation is the primary goal of R&D. But in order to generate new positions, we have to first develop new industries. Commercialization is critical to that process.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. ED MARKEY (D, MA-7): I must oppose this bill because I have serious concerns about allowing SBIR awards to go to an unlimited number of businesses owned or controlled by venture capital (VC) firms. The SBIR program, responsible for over 60,000 patents, has always focused on innovation from truly small businesses for whom commercial capital market funding is typically not an option. However, with the change made in this bill, the SBIR program would be wide open to applicants that already are well-capitalized due to VC participation, crowding out the small businesses that have been the focus of the highly successful SBIR program.

While I support VC participation in the SBIR program, enabling an unlimited amount of large VC majority-owned firms to qualify for SBIR funding calls into question whether this program, intended for genuinely small businesses, is, in fact, still focused on these firms.

We should do everything in our power to strengthen small businesses that generate 70% of new jobs in our country. H.R 2965 does not do enough to ensure that small businesses are the focus of the SBIR program, and therefore I cannot support the bill.

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.

Voted NO on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks.

Voted NO on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment.

Rated 20% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record.

Whether you own a business, represent one, lead a corporate office, or manage an association, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of AmericaSM provides you with a voice of experience and influence in Washington, D.C., and around the globe.

Our members include businesses of all sizes and sectors—from large Fortune 500 companies to home-based, one-person operations. In fact, 96% of our membership encompasses businesses with fewer than 100 employees.

Mission Statement:

"To advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility."

Rated 100% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record.

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 House scorecard is based on these key votes:
1. (+) Extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
2. (+) H. Am. 877 Bishop Am. to HR 3094, penalties for lawsuits against unionization
3. (+) H. Am. 880 Jackson-Lee Am. to HR 3094, preventing delays in union votes
4. (-) Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, freezing public salaries
5. (-) Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, for less corporate regulation
6. (-) Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act
7. (-) Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, letting CEOs fire union organizers

Sponsored enforcing against corporate offshore tax haven banking.

Congressional Summary:Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act: to impose restrictions on foreign jurisdictions or financial institutions operating in the US that are of prime money laundering concern or that significantly impede US tax enforcement.

• treat foreign corporations controlled primarily in the US, as domestic corporations for tax purposes
• require tax withholding agents and financial institutions to report certain information about owners of foreign-owned financial accounts,
• treat swap payments sent offshore as taxable US source income,
• increase penalties for promoting abusive tax shelters and for aiding and abetting the understatement of tax liability
• prohibit tax advisor contingent fee agreements for obtaining a tax savings or benefit
• requires corporations registered with the SEC to report annually, on a country-by country basis, on employees, pre-tax gross revenues, and payments made to foreign governments
• authorizes a fine of up to $1 million for failure to disclose any holding or transaction involving a foreign entity that would otherwise be subject to disclosure requirements
• publishes a rule requiring investment advisors to establish anti-money laundering programs and submit suspicious activity reports
• Extends anti-money laundering requirements to persons engaged in the business of forming new businesses or other legal entities.

Proponent's argument for bill: (by Jubilee USA Network, a religious antipoverty organization):

"The religious community couldn't be more pleased with this vital legislation that protects poor people inside and outside our borders. This legislation means that corporations can't rob billions of dollars from poor people across the globe. A critical piece of the legislation is country-by-country reporting of corporate payments to governments. Reporting at this level sheds light on the tax dodging that hurts all of us."

Restrict 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.