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) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

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%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 19, 2015 02:26 PM UTC

Progressives, Consumer Advocates Call For Veto of Interest Rate Hike Legislation

  • 14 Comments
  • by: ProgressNow Colorado

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

ProgressNow Colorado, the state’s largest online progressive advocacy organization, joined today with Colorado Senators Lucia Guzman and Jessie Ulibarri, along with the Bell Policy Center, the Colorado Center for Law and Policy, and other concerned stakeholders to deliver a petition to Gov. John Hickenlooper requesting a veto of House Bill 15-1390–legislation that passed in the final hours of this year’s legislative session to allow lenders to dramatically increase interest rates on specific kinds of personal loans.

“Today, we’re here to deliver the signatures of hundreds of Coloradans to Gov. Hickenlooper, asking for a veto of House Bill 1390,” said ProgressNow Colorado executive director Amy Runyon-Harms. “Lobbyists for the subprime lending industry sneaked in this last-minute bill to allow huge interest rate increases on specific kinds of personal loans used by working families in Colorado and others trying to re-establish their credit. The Colorado Attorney General’s office estimates that this legislation could mean increases of almost 40% to the total cost of a supervised personal loan.”

“Passing bills that could cost thousands of Coloradans millions of dollars at the last minute with no debate is just plain wrong,” said Runyon-Harms at today’s press conference. “There was no opportunity to properly debate this legislation–and that was by design. This bill to allow lenders to hike interest rates on personal loans was passed by both chambers in less than a week. Lobbyists for large financial corporations like Citigroup pushed this legislation for the sole purpose of enriching their clients–at the expense of Colorado’s hard working families who need access to credit.”

“We believe that once Gov. Hickenlooper has a chance to examine the issue in its entirety, a veto of this legislation will be an easy call,” said Runyon-Harms. “We support access to credit, and we want financial services in Colorado to be profitable. If the laws need changing, let’s have an honest debate–not a last-minute swindle that denies citizens a voice in this important decision.”

Comments

14 thoughts on “Progressives, Consumer Advocates Call For Veto of Interest Rate Hike Legislation

  1. Just curious how lobbyists "sneaked in" legislation.  Did they slip it into a stack of bills already assigned to committees?  Did they do some sort of Daffy Duck/Bugs Bunny vote for the bill, vote against the bill, for, against, against, for! routine in the Business Affairs & Labor committee?  Use their jedi powers to get the bill passed on the House floor by a ridiculous margin– "Easy Obi-Wan, we only need 33 votes.  62 votes..showoff."

    Or maybe, just maybe, did a Democratically-controlled House filled with corporatists actually like this bill. either because of their misguided understanding or honest feeling for the lenders.  Dickie Lee put the bill into a committee (she could have killed it), the Dems voted for it in committee and on the floor (with a couple exceptions).  If they gave a rats ass about the folks this would affect, they could have chosen, because it was entirely within their power to do so, to take it up next session.

    Democrats were complicit and active in this process.  Stop with the "look what happened to us" bullshit.

    1. I don't disagree with you. I think what you're saying is a given, and they're just trying to do the right thing without excessive rancor.

      Has anybody heard what the Gov plans to do?

      1. I don't have patience for that, to be honest.  They should replace "Lobbyists for the…" everywhere in the diary with "House Democrats"– at least it would be honest.  Saying lobbyists this and that is trying to demonize folks who are only doing what they are paid to do.  How about laying this turd at the foot of the folks who failed to do what they are paid to, our beloved House majority.

        1. Good points, except the one about pay.  Lobbyists get paid substantially more than $30,000 a year, so given the relative disparity in compensation for results achieved, I think the lobbyists should shoulder a proportionately larger share of the blame.

          1. Disagree. It's their job to push for what they want but it's the legislators' job to make the best decisions for the benefit of the people regardless. That's where the buck stops. They don't get to use the excuse that the lobbyists made them do it. It's there job to educate themselves on the issues, not just accept what lobbyists tell them. 

            1. What I guess was in the back of my head when I wrote that was the issue of low-paid, part-time legislators, with a growing set of responsibilities in a state that is experiencing explosive growth, but the session's length is still just 4 months.

              Aren't we expecting a bit too much from citizen legislators that have to put most of their lives on hold for 4 months of the year, to expect them to be able to absorb all bills (esp. late bills) better than a full time paid lobbyist focusing on just a handful of their own bills?

              But I agree, I can't believe just from the title of the bill, this wasn’t a non-starter for Dems (although I will admit, my old Dem state rep voted for supporting the payday loan sharks several years ago before the limits were finally imposed in 2010).  So they do have their hooks deeply embedded in our party's reps.

        2. Like I said, no argument from me. My Dem Rep. voted yes and I signed this petition asking for a veto. I will call him out for it next town hall too.

  2. "deliver the signatures of hundreds of Coloradoans………" And the state's population is 5 million +. Not exactly talking a landslide here. 

    1. No but the universe of Coloradoans who are even vaguely aware of anything going on in the state legislature is really, really, really small. That said, good point.

    1. Three of the five big banks cited in the article are foreign banks. I don't see how that ties into any request for a veto of a Colorado-passed bill. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

71 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!