Try the political quiz

Candidates  ›  Policies  ›  Economic

Republican2020 US House of RepresentativesCongressional District 7South Carolina

Melissa Watson

Overview Policies Discuss Ratings Themes Ideology

Melissa Watson’s policy on corporate tax

These issues below are sorted in descending order based on how important the average American voter ranked them on the quiz.

Filters

Topics

Should the U.S. raise or lower the tax rate for corporations?

MW>MW  Melissa Watson voterbaseRaise

Melissa Watson’s answer is based on the following data:

Updated 15hrs ago

Melissa Watson voters

Answer: Raise

Importance: Least Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 74 voters that voted for Melissa Watson in the 2020 South Carolina District 7 US House of Representatives election.

This candidate’s support base disagrees with their political party on this issue.

Party influence

Republican Party Answer: Lower

Importance: Most Important

Reference: “Trump has said he would cut the top individual rate to 25 percent and the top corporate rate to 15 percent while also eliminatin...” ‐washingtonpost.com

Personal answer

This candidate has not responded to our request to answer this question yet. Help us get it faster by telling them to answer the iSideWith quiz.

Voting record

We are currently researching this candidate’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this candidate’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.

Public statements

We are currently researching campaign speeches and public statements from this candidate about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

Updated 7hrs ago

Party’s support base

Republican Party Voters’ Answer: Lower

Importance: Somewhat Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 28,751 voters that identify as Republican.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this candidate’s stance here


Popular conversations

Join in on the post popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6 days6D

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…9hrs9H

Trump Team Rages As Courts Block Executive Orders

Democratic attorneys general and Democracy Forward have achieved significant early legal victories against Trump's executive actions through injunctions and restraining orders.The resistance coalition has grown substantially, expanding from 180 partner organizations post-election to over 400 currently.Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer notes nearly 50 lawsuits have been filed, with courts freezing many major policy implementations.Despite legal successes, Democrats face criticism for lack of visible resistance, with no mass protests and congressional Democrats being heckled by protesters.YouGov polling shows two-thirds of Democratic voters want stronger opposition to Trump from their representatives.The legal strategy was pre-planned during the 2024 campaign, particularly targeting the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 agenda.State attorneys general like Tish James (NY), Rob Bonta (CA), and Andrea Campbell (MA) are leading much of the legal resistance.Media coverage has focused more on Democratic congressional losses and awkward moments than on legal victories.The Trump administration dismisses court losses as "judicial hackery" while complying with most rulings.Some Democrats acknowledge the slower pace of legal victories makes it difficult for constituents to see progress against urgent threats.

▲  197 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…10hrs10H

China Blacklists U.S. Companies In Trade War Escalation

China's blacklisting of PVH (Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger) and Illumina marks the first time American companies with major Chinese operations have been targeted on national security grounds, signaling an escalation in trade tensions.The blacklisting came in response to Trump's imposition of additional 10% tariffs on Chinese imports, alongside Beijing launching an antitrust probe into Google.A record 30% of American Chamber of Commerce member companies were considering or already moving operations out of China, according to a recent survey.China's "unreliable entity list," introduced in 2020, mirrors the US "entity list" and could result in fines, trade bans, and restrictions on staff movement for targeted companies.PVH, which derives 6% of revenue and 16% of pre-interest/tax income from China, was specifically targeted over alleged "unreasonable boycotting" of Xinjiang cotton.The blacklisting's implications remain unclear, leaving approximately 1,000 PVH employees in China uncertain about their future.China's Commerce Ministry has declined to specify potential sanctions, stating only that companies operating with integrity have "nothing to worry about."The move contradicts China's public stance on wanting more foreign investment, creating increased uncertainty for multinational companies operating in the country.The blacklisting strategy appears selective, with China typically avoiding targeting market leaders to minimize domestic employment impact.US companies were already struggling to navigate rising Beijing-Washington tensions before this latest escalation in trade conflicts.

▲  2011 replies