March, 20 2020, 12:00am EDT
Republicans Issue Extremely Weak Bailout CEO Pay Plan
Emergency assistance should be tied to a cap on executive compensation above 50 times median worker pay.
WASHINGTON
There is growing consensus on the need for executive compensation restrictions on corporations that receive emergency coronavirus crisis assistance. The question is how best to structure these restrictions to most effectively prevent taxpayer dollars from padding the pockets of executives instead of mitigating a national economic crisis.
Republican ban on pay raises is extremely weak
The March 19 Republican plan includes pathetically weak restrictions on executive compensation at airlines and other distressed companies that receive emergency financial assistance.
The plan merely bans pay raises for two years for executives who earned more than $425,000 in 2019. In other words, if a CEO made $10 million in 2019, he or she could earn $10 million in 2020 and 2021. Golden parachute payments for these executives would be limited to twice the value of their 2019 compensation. If an executive made $424,999 in 2019, he or she would face no pay limits whatsoever.
"Saying you're going to limit CEO pay at bailed-out corporations and then merely proposing to freeze that pay at pre-virus levels -- the trick the Trump White House is trying to pull off -- is like is like chasing burglars out of your house and then calling them an Uber for their getaway," said Institute for Policy Studies executive pay expert Sarah Anderson.
The Republican plan would do nothing to prevent massive CEO windfalls through their equity-based pay during a taxpayer-funded economic recovery. Say a CEO got a stock grant worth $9 million in 2019. To match that value in 2020, when share prices are very low, the firm would have to award many more shares, which could easily balloon in value in a recovery.
Exec comp should be capped at a level that prevents taxpayer subsidies for excessive pay
Two options:
1. Restrict total executive compensation to no more than 50 times median worker pay
"Linking CEO pay to a multiple of worker pay would prevent taxpayer subsidies from pumping up executive pay and, at the same time, create an incentive to narrow internal pay divides by lifting up the bottom of the wage scale," Anderson noted.
This pay ratio limit should accompany other proposed pro-worker conditions, such as banning layoffs, setting a $15 per hour wage minimum, requiring worker representation on boards, and banning anti-union activity.
As explained in more detail in this IPS Policy Brief, in 2018, the CEOs of the five largest U.S. airlines averaged nearly $10 million in total compensation. The ratio between CEO and median employee pay at these airlines ranged from 80 to 1 at Alaska Air to 195 to 1 at American. If the bailout law restricted CEO pay to no more than 50 times median worker pay, and if these five airlines kept median worker pay at current levels, their CEOs could earn $2.7 million to $4.1 million and still stay below this 50:1 ratio threshold.
2. Cap total executive compensation at a fixed amount
In 2009, the Senate approved an amendment that would have capped total pay for all employees of all bailout companies at no more than the salary of the U.S. President ($400,000). This sent a strong signal that bailout execs were essentially working for taxpayers, who should not have to subsidize excessive compensation. The measure, championed by Senator John McCain, was not included in the final bailout legislation.
Proposed bonus bans could be circumvented
Some lawmakers have proposed a ban on executive bonuses, starting immediately and extending for a few years after the bailout. This raises potential enforcement concerns:
1. Annual cash bonuses make up a small share of total executive compensation packages at the largest corporations. Executives are unlikely to meet criteria for long-term incentive awards in the near future, given low stock prices.
2. Corporations could circumvent this restriction by shifting compensation into other forms, such as salary, pensions, or long-term stock options or restricted stock awards (as President Obama's "Pay Czar" encouraged mega-bailout firms to do). As noted above, equity-based pay could turn into massive windfalls down the road as executives cash in on a taxpayer-funded economic recovery. Large stock-based awards made at a moment when share values are very low could balloon with even a small uptick in the market.
Government must have authority to force renegotiation of compensation contracts
Obama Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg had limited impact on executive pay at bailout firms after the 2008 crash. One reason: the bailout legislation limited his power over compensation contracts signed before February 11, 2009. This time around, legislators should require bailout recipients to renegotiate employment contracts to meet rigorous bailout restrictions.
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
LATEST NEWS
'Seismic Victory': Mamdani-Backed Progressives Trounce Establishment Dems, AIPAC Cash
"Today we make it clear: The politics of the past end today," said Darializa Avila Chevalier, who defeated five-term incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat.
Jun 24, 2026
Three progressive candidates emerged victorious from US congressional primaries in New York on Tuesday, overcoming millions of dollars in spending by corporate interests and AIPAC with grassroots campaigns that centered the working class.
Brad Lander, the former New York City comptroller, defeated Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman in New York's 10th Congressional District, nearly doubling the incumbent's vote count with over 90% of ballots tallied. In New York's 13th, Darializa Avila Chevalier—who was recruited by Justice Democrats—defeated five-term incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat. Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember and democratic socialist recruited by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, defeated Brooklyn borough president Antonio Reynoso in the race for the 7th District seat left open by retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez.
The wins marked a clean sweep for Mamdani-backed candidates, each of whom campaigned on Medicare for All, affordable housing, stronger union protections, and an end to US military support for Israel's genocidal assault on Palestinians. The primary wins for Lander, Valdez, and Avila Chevalier essentially guarantee them seats in the US House in the heavily Democratic districts.
"Today we make it clear: The politics of the past end today," Avila Chevalier, a 32-year-old community organizer, said after winning the primary in New York's 13th District, which Espaillat has represented for nearly a decade. The incumbent lost despite millions of dollars in spending by at least seven super PACs—including AIPAC's United Democracy Project.
"What we have delivered here today is a clear mandate that the era of taking a check and cashing a check and calling it representation is over," said Avila Chevalier in her victory speech.
Justice Democrats called Avila Chevalier's win a "seismic victory" and "the biggest primary upset against a Democratic incumbent this cycle."
"Darializa Avila Chevalier is exactly what Democratic voters nationwide are demanding—progressive champions who fight for their communities, not just when it's politically convenient but when it's morally necessary," said Alexandra Rojas, the group's executive director. "While a party machine led by Espaillat has spent decades failing to meet the needs of its voters, Darializa has taken on corporate interests and right-wing extremists to protect working families her whole career."
Mamdani, speaking at Valdez's victory party in Brooklyn, said New York City's mayoral race last year "was not the end of a political movement, it was the beginning."
"Let’s hear it for a politics that will never forget working people," the mayor said to cheers. "For a politics that is ready to write a new chapter in our party’s history. And for a politics that realizes the old politics that got us to this crisis is not gonna get us out of this crisis. It's time for working people to be back at the heart of our politics."
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s full speech at Claire Valdez’s victory party: pic.twitter.com/OdqFX7Daac
— Michael Lange (@MichaelLangeNYC) June 24, 2026
National progressives celebrated the wins in New York, with the advocacy group RootsAction declaring that "voters overwhelmingly rejected corporatist Democrats in favor of candidates who had the moral fiber to use the word 'genocide' and the backbone to stand up to the donor class."
"Now, Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila Chevalier, and Brad Lander will join the next Congress as three of the most progressive members in that body," the group added. "With these three in Congress, we’re on track to have one of the most progressive Democratic caucuses ever in the House. That means more pressure on the corporatist Democrats, and leaders who are willing to truly stand up to the fascistic Republican Party."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who endorsed Lander and Valdez, applauded their "landslide victories" in a social media post late Tuesday.
"Together," the senator wrote, "we are creating a grassroots progressive movement that will defeat the oligarchs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'New Red Scare': ICE Protester Gets 30 Years for Leftist Zines Under Trump Antifa Decree
"The Prairieland model is in motion: inflate anti-ICE protest into a terrorism narrative, then use the courts to punish people for being part of a movement," said one observer.
Jun 23, 2026
Civil liberties defenders sounded the alarm Tuesday over the draconian prison sentences imposed on a group of activists falsely accused by the Trump administration of being members of a non-existent "North Texas Antifa Cell"—including a 30-year term for a man convicted of moving a box containing leftist literature.
In what the US Department of Justice (DOJ) called "the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with Antifa following President Donald J. Trump’s executive order designating the group as a Domestic Terrorist Organization in September 2025," the defendants were sentenced in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth to between 30-100 years imprisonment for actions in connection with a July 4, 2025 protest at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, an ICE lockup run by prison profiteer LaSalle Corrections.
Despite DOJ documents showing that none of the defendants identified as Antifa—which does not exist as an organization, but is rather mostly an anti-fascist ideology and, to a lesser extent, a decentralized international movement—the targeted individuals were called "members of a North Texas Antifa Cell."
Prosecutors speciously called them "part of a larger militant enterprise made up of networks of individuals and small groups primarily ascribing to an ideology that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States government, law enforcement authorities, and the system of law."
The group Support the Prairieland Defendants said that relatives and supporters of the defendants "sat stunned as US District Judges Mark Pittman and Reed O’Connor delivered sentences ranging from 30-100 years in prison." They called the punishment "cruel, callous, and starkly disproportionate to the defendants’ actions."
On the night of the Prairieland protest, the group of convicted activists gathered outside what critics have called a concentration camp for what was meant to be a noise demonstration in solidarity with detainees. The group set off fireworks, and some participants vandalized property by spray-painting slogans, damaging a guard station, and damaging vehicles.
When law enforcement responded, a gunman fired from a wooded area and wounded Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross in the neck. Prosecutors characterized the event as a coordinated attack, while defense attorneys argued that most participants intended only to protest and did not plan or expect violence.
Former US Marine Corps reservist Benjamin Song, who was convicted of shooting Gross, was sentenced to 100 years, officially for attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and lesser offenses including discharging a firearm during a violent crime, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and rioting.
Song said he acted in defense of his comrades.
"When I saw... Gross stop pursuing and point his gun at the back of a running, unarmed protester, like he testified, I was terrified," he said on Tuesday. "As a firearms instructor and a United States Marine Corps veteran, I understood what I was seeing. I knew what it meant for someone to lean forward into a gun, like he testified, to prepare for recoil."
Maricela Rueda was sentenced to 70 years, officially for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and conspiracy to conceal documents. Critics said her "crime" was protesting ICE oppression and asking her husband to move a box.
Savanna Batten, Zachary Evetts, Autumn Hill, Bradford Morris, and Elizabeth Soto got 50 years each, officially for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use and using an explosive. Critics said their "crime" was attending a protest.
Seven others—Seth Sikes, Nathan Baumann, Joy Gibson, Susan Kent, Rebecca Morgan, Lynette Sharp, and John Thomas—have already pleaded guilty to one count each of providing material support to terrorists and are set to be sentenced on July 1. Ines Soto, who is married to Elizabeth Soto, was convicted of the same offenses as her spouse and was granted a continuance. She is also set to be sentenced on July 1.
Most disturbingly, say free speech defenders, is the 30-year prison sentence imposed on Daniel "Des" Rolando Sanchez Estrada for conspiracy to conceal documents.
Under the auspices of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7)—signed by Trump following last year's assassination of racist influencer Charlie Kirk in an effort to target leftists—Sanchez was accused of “corruptly concealing a document or record” after he moved a box containing leftist literature, including zines titled "Another Critique of Insurrectionalism," "It's Vacant, Take It!," and "War In the Streets: Tactical Lessons From the Global Civil War Vol. I."
Prosecutors alleged that Sanchez moved the box in a bid to avoid incriminating Rueda, who is his wife.
Prior to his sentencing, Sanchez—who is a green card holder—told the court that "I worked really hard every day in this country, and I believe in human rights and helping others in need. I donate money and art to help animals and other people."
"I’m a father, a husband, and a teacher," he added. "But I’m not a terrorist.”
Judge O'Connor was not moved, telling the court that the lengthy sentences are meant to "send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology" with the defendants, according to one observer of Tuesday's proceedings.
"These sentences are a travesty and totally unjustified, but that's the point," Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said on social media. "Americans hate the fascist Trump regime, so the only way they can try to cling to power is brute force. NSPM-7 is a grave threat to all of us, and more bullshit 'terrorism' charges like these are coming."
The Freedom of the Press Foundation said in response to Tuesday's sentencing, "The zines at issue may have discussed controversial political views, but they said nothing about the shooting or the Prairieland protest, and prosecutors did not allege that Sanchez’s wife... fired any shots or had anything to do with the shooting."
Seth Stern, Freedom of the Press Foundation's advocacy chief, said in a statement that "if prosecutors are correct that Sanchez moved zines because he feared they’d try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s."
"Under the First Amendment, possessing literature cannot be criminal, so what legitimate evidence could he possibly have been concealing?" he continued. "Political zines like those Sanchez possessed are no different from the pro-Revolution pamphlets this country’s founders had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment’s press clause."
“Sanchez’s case is the latest example of the Trump administration grasping at any legal straws it can to criminalize disfavored ideologies and writings, from conflating dissent with terrorism to deporting immigrants who report on protests or criticize wars the US bankrolls," Stern said.
"Americans should not make the mistake of believing Sanchez’s sentence only threatens immigrants, leftists, or so-called Antifa members—they’re just the low-hanging fruit, not the endgame," he added.
The prison terms for the Prairieland defendants were more severe than the longest sentences for the average US murderer or rapist, as well as for the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists—all of whom were later pardoned by Trump.
Arjun Sethi, a professor at Georgetown Law and Vanderbilt Law School, said on social media that "if you care about free speech and protest one iota, you should be aghast at the sentences just handed down in the Prairieland case."
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Fort Worth secretary Moishe Dovgolevsky called the sentences "the face of the new Red Scare."
Ana Marie Thorne, chair of the Social Justice Committee at All People’s Church Unitarian Universalist in Fort Worth, said that “as a congregation, we decided that this case was a fundamental test of our right to dissent against authoritarian regimes."
“These defendants are not militant monsters out to kill,” she added. “They are everyday people who saw our country literally interning people in concentration camps and decided to show up at Prairieland Detention Center to let those incarcerated there know that they mattered. We leave here today knowing that the outcome of this trial is not the end. It is the beginning.”
Moira Meltzer-Cohen, an attorney representing defendants in the case, said following Tuesday's sentencing that "this entire prosecution has been calculated to test the state's ability to quell dissent."
"But the way forward is not silence, it is courageous solidarity with those who are being punished on the basis of their protected beliefs, associations, and activities," she added. "And as devastating as this has been for those affected, I do believe their rights will be vindicated in the post-conviction process."
"This entire prosecution has been calculated to test the state's ability to quell dissent."
Song warned the American people Tuesday that while "strangers" may be targeted today, "it will be you tomorrow."
"There is no group called Antifa. Everyone knows that, but this government is so blinded by hate... they want to bury me with an idea," he said. "This idea that they hate is the very idea of being against fascism."
"What kind of people are not against fascism?" he continued. "What kind of people are not against the hate and war and genocide and concentration camps that the Nazis brought upon the world?"
"The hate has migrated into the government," Song warned. "Now that hate is taking power over me. It is taking power over you, over your words and your ideas. When will you be called a domestic terrorist, too?"
In Minneapolis, US Attorney Daniel Rosen—who was appointed by Trump last year—last week invoked NSPM-7 in the prosecution of 15 organizers with the groups Direct Action Minnesota and Black Cat Workers Collective who Rosen claims are linked to Antifa and who are accused of impeding the Department of Homeland Security's deadly anti-immigrant crackdown.
"When they killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti, they went on TV, and they called them domestic terrorists, the same day, within the hour," Song said, referring to two US citizens shot dead by Trump administration immigration enforcers in Minneapolis. "When will that happen to you?"
"I don’t fear for myself," he added. "I fear for all of you."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'End It Now': Senate Passes War Powers Resolution Rebuking Trump's Iran War
"The House and the Senate have both stood up," Democratic Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal said. "It’s time to stop this deadly and costly conflict."
Jun 23, 2026
In a "major bipartisan rebuke" of President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran, the US Senate on Tuesday passed a war powers resolution instructing Trump to withdraw US forces from Iran.
The vote was 50 to 48, with four Republicans joining the vast majority of Democrats to approve the resolution that was passed by the US House of Representatives earlier this month.
"The House and the Senate have both stood up," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote in celebration of the vote on social media. "It’s time to stop this deadly and costly conflict."
Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Bill Cassidy (La.) voted in favor of the resolution while Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) voted against it.
"Congress finally passed a war powers resolution to stop Trump's illegal war in Iran. It has been a disaster from the start."
"The vote was 50-48, with four Republicans joining Democrats to say Trump should not be able to keep dragging America deeper into military conflict," attorney Aaron Parnas wrote on social media. "This is a major bipartisan rebuke of Trump’s foreign policy chaos."
Anti-war group CodePink wrote, "The will of the people is undeniable: It's time to permanently end this war of aggression."
BREAKING: US Senate passes Iran War Powers Resolution by a vote of 50-48.
The resolution demands the removal of US forces from all hostilities against Iran. It's already passed the House.
The will of the people is undeniable: it's time to permanently end this war of aggression. pic.twitter.com/27rxceRu81
— CODEPINK (@codepink) June 23, 2026
The vote was a long time coming, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer noted it was Democrats' 10th attempt to limit Trump's ability to wage undeclared war since he unilaterally embroiled the US in a joint attack on Iran with Israel, beginning on February 28.
Schumer criticized the majority of Republicans for repeatedly failing to vote against the war, which he said would "go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made," according to The Associated Press.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote on social media: "Congress finally passed a war powers resolution to stop Trump's illegal war in Iran. It has been a disaster from the start. End it now."
The vote made history by being the first time both the House and Senate have passed a concurrent resolution calling for an end to a conflict since the War Powers Resolution of 1973, as The New York Times reported.
Concurrent resolutions do not require a presidential signature and therefore do not typically have the force of law. However, Democratic lawmakers and foreign policy experts argue that because Congress has the ability to declare war under the Constitution, the resolution should still restrict the president's actions.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), who sponsored the House resolution, wrote: "With the Senate passage of my Iran War Powers Resolution, both chambers have now made clear that the president cannot continue this war of choice and must cease all hostilities against Iran. Regardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the executive complies with the will of Congress. Congress never authorized this failed war, and the president certainly has no authority to continue it indefinitely without our consent as the Constitution demands."
The vote comes about a week after the US and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding to move toward ending the war that has killed at least 3,400 in Iran and thousands more across the region. However, the subsequent ceasefire and negotiations have been rocky and uncertain due to continued Israeli attacks on Lebanon and threats from Trump.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular