Claire McCaskill on Corporations Democratic Sr Senator; previously state Auditor

Amend banking rules in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Josh Hawley (R): Yes. Argued that its creation was unconstitutional.

Claire McCaskill (D): No, but voted to amend some of its banking rules.

Supports Net Neutrality: equal access to all users

Josh Hawley (R): Unknown.

Claire McCaskill (D): Yes. Co-sponsored bill to restore rule requiring this.

Limit TARP recipients' executive compensation to $400,000

Claire McCaskill had a bill to limit executive compensation to the president's salary, $400,000, for executives of firms receiving federal money. She got some rhetorical support from the president. But Geithner pushed back hard, arguing that the bill would make it difficult to get banks to cooperate with the administration's plans.

Rated 86% 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 Senate scorecard is based on these key votes:
1. American Jobs Act (+)
2. Balanced Budget Amendment (-)
3. Rejecting Cut, Cap, and Balance (+)
4. Repeal Health Care Law (-)
5. Sen. Am. 14 Wicker Am. to S 223, excluding unionization at TSA (-)
6. Sen. Am. 740 McCain Am. to HR 2112, defunding TAA (-)
7. Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act (TAA) (+)

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.