CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 26, 2010 08:11 PM UTC
13 Comments
The difference, besides the letter behind their names on the ballot, between payday lenders and Suthers and Bankers and Bennet is exactly what?
stop rubbing it in… I know, I know. Dems should have gone with Romanoff.
I just thought a little bit of consistency might be in order. If it is great policy to be paid off by people with business before you for one party it is great policy for both. I think we both agree it is not great policy for either, but ColoPols seems to have a rather short attention span
So Bennet has complete responsibility for drafting the rules that result from the legislation he voted for. Shit, who knew! He’s a Senator and an executive branch administrator, too! Wait that isn’t possible is it?
In my right hand I have an apple. In my left, and orange. They’re not the same, despite your insistence to the contrary.
So it is OK for Bennet to take money from people who have business before his committee to influence his vote, but it is not for Suthers?
He gets to vote, doesn’t he or has he given that to Obama for donations and just forgot to tell anyone? Trevor?
That kind of donation would be illegal.
But it’s a separate argument, and it’s irrelevant. These are two completely different parts of the process. This would be more like taking legislation Bennet voted for (as he did vote for banking and credit card reform) and having a bureaucrat gut it after the fact.
As I said, apples and oranges. And what Suthers may have done here is much worse either way.
Nice try though!
You know, money is speech, he’s all for free speech, he’s even for paid speech,(honoria)
And free markets, because nothing is free.
And quid pro quo. Because $10,000 is a lot of tat.
The bad news is that he is apparently for sale, the good news it that he is apparently cheap.
How stupid can John Suthers, his top advisers and political consultants be? Suthers was headed to a twenty point win until this issue came along.
But Suthers certainly doesn’t need the taint of a political payoff dragging down his campaign.
Beyond that, though – the Legislature clearly made a law with the idea that they wanted to reduce fees/interest charged by payday lenders. Suthers is poking them (and consumers) in the eye with these rules; clearly he isn’t interested in consumer protection, which is one of his prime duties.
as much as I hate to do this, here’s the new HB1351 language as it was signed into law.
I have broken it up into groups of sentences (that I have numbered 1, 2, and 3) which I will analyze, to follow. The good news is that it takes neither a law degree, nor an advanced understanding of mathematics to understand what has occurred.
1. This clause is the exact same clause that has been payday lending law since 2000. It is these charges on 14-day loans that yield an APR in excess of 520% for payday loans. (The previous law limited the term of payday loans to forty days.)
This clause was originally deleted in the first version of the bill that was introduced and passed by the Colorado House. The clause was re-inserted into HB1351 by the Senate, as an amendment, at 7:00 p.m. on the night before third reading the next morning.
2. The second clause was the heart of HB1351 as it originally passed out of the Colorado House. It calls for interest on the loan amount at a rate of 45% per annum.
3. This third clause calls for monthly maintenance fees of up to $30.00 dollars per month for each month the loan is open.
The third clause was also appended to HB1351 in the Senate, by amendment, at 7:00 p.m. on the night before the third reading the next morning.
So, after it came out of the senate HB1351 called for: 1. The same rate of charges as was already in effect plus 2. another 45% per annum plus 3. additional monthly maintenance fees.
or, A + B + C > A
Where “A” is the old rate of charges,
“B” is an additional 45% per annum,
and “C” is new monthly maintnenance fees.
That’s not so hard to understand, is it?
So, then you’ve got to be some kind of idiot or oblivious moron to claim to not understand that if you add additional fees and interest to an existing amount (over the same 14-day term) that you’re going to come up with a larger amount in that particular case.
The only thing that’s “absurd” here is that now, after the bill has been introduced, amended, passed, and signed by the Governor, that some folks are able to claim with a straight face, “that wasn’t our legislative intent.” (OK, I don’t know what their intent does, no one does. What I do know is that the bill they wrote isn’t reflective of their claimed intent in all cases, and it’s a damn shame that the folks involved weren’t smart enough, or clear enough, to understand that.)
Class dismissed. Be sure to wash your hands, lawyers and politicians were involved here.
I’m going to look into it tomorrow when I’m less bleary. How is it, though, that you are the first person who has ever mentioned this problem, and wouldn’t the governor’s attorney also know it? Wouldn’t the payday lender who swore this bill would put them out of business, AFTER it passed?
And what is your intense interest in this, if you don’t mind my asking?
first with simply, “I am Diogenes. I am just looking for an honest man.” And, also that I am intensely interested in flyfishing, but not for any particularly good reason.
I’m fairly certain that the governor’s attorney does understand this. He or she is pointing out a “worst case” scenario, and not commenting broadly upon the new law. You’ll have to ask him or her what the particular motivation might be.
More generally, It could be slightly more expensive for a borrower to pay off an HB1351 immediately upon their first payday (and even up to thirty days since many payday lenders were writing loans for up to one month under the old law.) After thirty days, the HB1351 loans become cheaper for borrowers than it would have been for them to transact a series of consecutive loans.
It is much cheaper, in fact, for borrowers to get one loan for six months under the new HB1351 fee structure than it is to get a consecutive series of loans every two weeks for six months under the old fee structure. That is what the lender’s don’t like. (This is the “problem” that HB1351 “fixed.” It did not “fix” every “problem,” and in fact has created a couple of new, albeit generally smaller, problems for the less frequent borrower.)
What the lenders will now try to do under HB1351 is encourage people to pay off these new loans as quickly as possible (and earn that large clause 1. origination fee that is fully earned as of the date of the transaction) so that they can then write the borrowers a new loan with a new origination fee.
Keep in mind, too, that this law, and the previous law don’t stipulate “the rate that must be charged,” but rather the maximimum rates that can be charged. Lender’s don’t “have to” collect more than they would have under the old law for people who pay in full very early in the loan term (i.e., within the first thirty days). I am of the opinion that some lender’s obviously will charge every penny that the new law permits in every circumstance, and that some other lender’s will waive some or all of the additional HB1351 interest for people who pay off very early — not so much out of altruism, but rather as an “incentive” to get people to pay off early in the hopes that they will transact another loan sooner.