Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton served in the Senate together during one of the biggest public policy events in recent history — the financial crisis of 2007–08 and the subsequent attempts to rescue the big banks.

We looked at the votes that divided them on financial issues and some of their key bills to address problems they see in the financial industry.

Their Votes

Clinton and Sanders voted differently twice on financial matters, both times on extremely contentious proposals addressing the financial crisis:

The Bank Bailout

H.R. 1424 — Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

This bill, commonly known as the bank bailout, contained the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) that authorized the Treasury Department to spend up to $700 billion on the purchase of mortgage-backed securities and other “troubled assets” that the government determined were necessary to purchase to promote financial market stability. It also contained provisions encouraging the government to modify mortgages to help prevent foreclosures and to limit the pay of executives at financial institutions that participate in TARP.

Clinton: supported the bailout

Sanders: opposed the bailout

The Second Bailout Tranche

S.J.Res. 5 — A joint resolution relating to the disapproval of obligations under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act divided the TARP funds into two tranches of $350 billion each and specified that Congress could block the second tranche from being released by passing a joint resolution. The first tranche was released to the Bush administration on October 3, 2008. S.J.Res. 5 was a joint resolution to block the second tranche of TARP bailout funds from being released to the Obama administration following their request for the funds on January 12, 2009.

Clinton: supported the second bailout tranche (i.e. opposed S.J.Res. 5)

Sanders: opposed the second bailout tranche (i.e. supported S.J.Res. 5)

Their Bills

Both Clinton and Sanders have sponsored legislation that would have had an effect on the financial industry. Here’s a look at the candidates’ top three proposals.

Clinton’s top bills impacting the financial industry

Mortgage Enhancement and Modification Act: To help homeowners facing foreclosure, this bill would encourage mortgage lenders to offer loan modifications by ensuring that they could not be subject to lawsuits from investors for doing so. At the same time it reaffirms that mortgage servicers have a duty to maximize, or not negatively impact, investors’ returns. The bill also contains provisions prohibiting fees, penalties, and terms that could hurt homeowners that receive a modification.

Debit and Check Card Consumer Protection Act: This bill would bring consumer protections for debit cards up to par with existing protections for credit cards. Under the bill debit card users would only be liable for up to $50 (down from the current cap of $500) when they report a fraudulent transaction on their account. It would also allow debit card users to “chargeback” for refunds for unfulfilled or unacceptable goods and services, similar to what credit card users can do.

Corporate Executive Compensation Accountability and Transparency Act: This bill would make several changes to the rules governing executive pay, an issue that was brought into the spotlight by the financial crisis. It would extend the period of time during which executive pay could be taken back for misconduct and it would limit the amount of executive pay that could be deferred in a given year. It would also give shareholders non-binding votes on approving pay and benefits packages for executives.

Sanders’ top bills impacting the financial industry

Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act: This bill would break up the so-called “too big to fail” financial institutions. It directs the Treasury Secretary to identify commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, and insurance companies whose failures would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of the financial system. The identified companies would then have to be broken up by the Treasury Secretary, likely through the imposition of a cap on their size

Federal Reserve Transparency Act: This bill would require the Federal Reserve (the Fed) to make public the details of the bailout assistance it provided to financial institutions in the wake of the 2007–08 crisis. The Fed would be required to disclose the recipients of its assistance, the amount or value of the assistance, the date on which it was provided, the reasoning behind it, and information about any repayment terms.

Federal Reserve Independence Act: This bill attempts to end conflicts of interest at the Federal Reserve by declaring that “no employee of a bank holding company or other entity regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may serve on the board of directors of any Federal reserve bank.” It would also prevent all Federal Reserve employees and any board member of a Federal Reserve bank from owning stock in an institution that is regulated by the Fed.