Democrat Told Occupiers 'Too Much Corporate Politics’; Votes for More in 2017

Not one Dem opposed this year's big corporate handout bills

Curtis Hertel, Jr. Image via Hertel for Senate website.

In 2011, current state Sen. Curtis Hertel Jr. said this to a public radio reporter at an Occupy Wall Street event in Lansing:

“I think in general the message that Occupy Lansing has is very good. We do have to realize that our politics has way too much corporate interest in it.”

ForTheRecord Says: That was then, this is now.

Here’s how summarized Senate Bill 111, with the tagline, “Transfer state revenue to big developers.”

“Passed 27 to 6 in the Senate on Feb. 22, 2017, to authorize giving ongoing cash subsidies to particular developers and business owners selected by state and local political appointees. Developers would get cash subsidies for up to 20 years equal to the income tax paid by their employees. Fiscal agency projections suggest the process could transfer up to $1.8 billion state tax dollars to these beneficiaries.”

Hertel voted in favor of the bill. He also voted for Senate Bill 442, which summarized as “Transfer state revenue to certain big business owners.”

“Passed 32 to 5 in the Senate on March 29, 2017, to authorize giving up to $250 million of state revenue to certain large developers and big business owners selected by political appointees on the board of a state Strategic Fund agency. Owners of selected firms would get cash subsidies for up to 10 years equal to half or all of the income tax paid by their employees.”

Six other Democrats voted “yes” on Senate Bill 111, and nine joined Hertel in support of Senate Bill 242. No Democrats opposed either bill, but several did not vote on the former.

Five Republicans opposed Senate Bill 111 and six opposed Senate Bill 242.

Stay Engaged

Simply enter your email below to receive our weekly email:


There aren’t many policies that get near unanimous support from economists, but free trade is one of them. Despite this, a central theme of the 2016 presidential campaign, heard from both political parties, was that free trade was somehow harmful to the United States and corrective action was needed. Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, makes the case for why President Trump’s assessment of free trade is misguided.

Related Sites