Video & Transcript Research : 'S corporations'

Page 1 of 397
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy Committee 3/18/26

Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:
  • /c><00:01:46.360> corp um S corp um S corp corporations. corporations. corporations.
  • 100% S corporation owner paying me how a 100% S corporation owner paying him<00:01:54.480> or<
  • I am an S corporation.
  • I'm very proud of I am an S corporation.
  • You don't represent every S corporation in Minnesota.
VT

Vermont 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Caucus of the Whole - 2025-05-16 - 11:35AM

Vermont House Floor Meeting

MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee 3/12/26

Commerce Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:
  • It's a corporations bill. finance bill. It's a corporations bill.
  • <00:26:24.080> career<00:26:24.480> corporate I'm uh also a corporate career corporate
  • Corporate rights versus corporate powers.
  • <01:04:04.400> interest corporations public interest corporations public interest corporations
  • <01:04:05.680> corporation<01:04:06.559> entities corporations corporation entities corporations
Bills: HF4133, HF3419
US
Transcript Highlights:
  • Today, we gather together. consider S-331, the Halt All Lethal Trafficking and Fentanyl Act, also known
Bills: SB331
Summary: In this committee meeting, the focus was primarily on S-331, the Halt All Lethal Trafficking and Fentanyl Act, aimed at addressing the fentanyl crisis. The bill's key components include making permanent the class scheduling of fentanyl-related substances, confirming existing sentencing penalties, and easing registration requirements for scientific research on Schedule I substances. Numerous parents shared heartbreaking testimonies about their losses due to fentanyl, which fueled an urgent call to pass the legislation without alterations. The committee members engaged in passionate discussions highlighting the urgency of the situation as overdoses continue to claim American lives.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • system that is in use here in the Commonwealth is manufactured in Austin, Texas, nearby our actual corporate
  • nearby<01:16:14.640> our<01:16:15.199> actual<01:16:16.080> um,<01:16:16.640> corporate
  • nearby our actual um, corporate nearby our actual um, corporate facility.
  • I'd like to talk to you just a few moments about corporate security. of the two accredited independent
  • just a few I'd like to talk to you just a few moments<01:19:28.000> about<01:19:28.239> corporate
Summary: The committee met to approve the October 21 minutes and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal relating to prohibited uses of tax dollars and public resources. The sponsors said the bill is intended to strengthen existing law by adding civil and criminal penalties for taxpayer-funded advocacy on ballot questions, especially in light of controversies during the 2024 election over school officials and districts using public resources to oppose a constitutional amendment. They also described related concerns about school districts hiring third-party lobbyists and public relations firms, particularly in Fayette County, and said the proposal was meant to keep tax dollars focused on public services rather than political persuasion. Committee members raised several concerns about scope and drafting. Some asked whether the bill should specifically mention schools, school boards, and school employees, and the sponsors said they would add that language. Others questioned whether the measure would also affect local government lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, and the sponsors said they intended to focus narrowly on schools while exempting certain advocacy organizations and internal government lobbyists. Members also asked whether public employees could still speak as private individuals, and the sponsors said yes. Several members suggested splitting the lobbying and ballot-advocacy issues into separate bills, and the sponsors said they would consider that. Members also pressed for clarification on how the bill would apply in practice, including whether it would cover legal challenges to petition drives or only advocacy after a question is on the ballot. Counsel for the sponsors said the bill would not cover some petition-related litigation as drafted, though they believed it should. The sponsors and supporters argued the proposal was needed to give the existing prohibition real enforcement, while some members warned that the language could unintentionally limit legitimate public representation or be too broad if not carefully drafted. No final vote was taken during the discussion.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • About a third of Kentucky voters cast their ballots using ES&S technology.
  • ES&S designs and manufactures purpose-built voting equipment.
  • The ES&S supply chain is one of the most extensive in the elections industry.
  • nearby our actual um, corporate nearby our actual um, corporate facility, I<01:16:24.960> think
  • I'd like to talk to you just a few moments about corporate security.
Summary: The committee met, approved the October 21 minutes, and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal to prohibit the use of tax dollars and public resources to advocate for or against ballot questions, including constitutional amendments. Senator Rawlings and the other presenters argued the current law already bars such advocacy but lacks meaningful enforcement, citing the 2024 school choice amendment campaign and other examples where public officials and school systems allegedly used taxpayer-funded resources to influence voters. They said the bill would add civil and criminal penalties, while preserving First Amendment rights for public employees acting in their personal capacities. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be limited to school districts or broadened to cover other public entities, and on how to define terms such as “advocating in impartial terms.” Members raised concerns about possible effects on county and city lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, on legitimate factual explanations by public officials, and on whether the bill could unintentionally restrict needed representation for local governments. The sponsors said the measure was intended to be narrow, would be vetted further, and would not bar individuals from speaking on their own behalf. Several members suggested revisions. Representative Lockett asked that schools and school employees be specifically named, and suggested separating the lobbying restrictions from the ballot-measure provisions into different bills. Representative Layman questioned the meaning of the bill’s language and whether it would cover factual testimony by officials. Representative Heen asked about a Jefferson County example involving legal fees used to challenge petition signatures; counsel said that situation would likely be allowable under the bill as drafted, though some members thought it should be covered. No final vote was taken on BR 25 during this discussion.
US
Transcript Highlights:
  • Today, we will consider S. 347, the Brownfield Reauthorization Act of 2025.
  • Next, we will consider S. 351, the Strategies to Eliminate Waste and Accelerate Recycling Development
  • I will now call up S. 347, the Brownfield Reauthorization Act of 2025.
  • Finally, I will call up S. 351. I'm going to hold.
  • They set up Alaska Native Corporations. They set up regional corporations.
Bills: SB347, SB351
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Taxes Committee 3/11/26

Taxes

Transcript Highlights:
  • And so, expensive corporate tax breaks.
  • tax breaks, which result in many corporations, the largest, most profitable corporations in our country
  • And this seems, in her view of it, to just accrue to the large wealthy corporations.
  • And I the large wealthy corporations.
  • multinational multi-state corporations multinational multi-state corporations in<01:26:10.719>
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Taxes Committee 3/13/25

Taxes

Transcript Highlights:
  • Simply put, this bill is a stimulus not to big corporations but to the middle and working classes at
  • Simply put, this bill is a stimulus not to big corporations but to the middle and working classes at
  • Simply put, this bill is a stimulus not to big corporations but to the middle and working classes at
  • areas or whether they live down here today, it happens to be my five-year anniversary of surviving Corporate
  • > The people that live and work and want to stay in this community, resorts are one of the few corporations
MN

Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session

House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee 2/25/25

Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Transcript Highlights:
  • <00:01:43.880> law process within the uh corporate law process within the uh corporate law
  • <00:01:51.079> act in the model business corporations act in the model business corporations
  • <00:01:55.040> law leading jurisdiction for corporate law leading jurisdiction for corporate
  • Like, this is corporate law. I don't trust corporate corporations or their lawyers, you know.
  • corporate law I don't trust corporate corporate law I don't trust corporate corporations<00:15:13.120
Bills: HF747, HF360