UPDATE: FOX 31 reports on the controversy over House Bill 15-1390:
—–
A big question remaining from the end of this year’s legislative session is the status of a bill passed at warp speed just as the session came to an end earlier this month. House Bill 15-1390, legislation that would allow subprime personal lenders to dramatically increase interest rates on “supervised” loans typically sought by borrowers with impacted credit histories, passed the Democratic-controlled Colorado House nearly unanimously and with almost no debate. In the Senate, most Democrats voted against the legislation after consumer advocacy groups like the Bell Policy Center managed to sound the alarm.
Yesterday, those groups joined with Senators Jessie Ulibarri and Lucia Guzman at a presser, requesting a veto of the bill by Gov. John Hickenlooper. As we’ve noted previously, Hickenlooper’s office was apparently not party to the deal that greased this bill through the legislature just before adjournment, and both sides are presently lobbying his office for and against signing the bill into law.
As these remaining steps in the process play out, many observers, including readers of this blog, have rightly asked the question–just how did this plainly anti-consumer legislation make it out of the Democratic-controlled Colorado House? Why did so many Democratic representatives, including some pretty lefty liberal types, vote for a bill directly counter to the interests of working families they are charged with defending? Especially a last-minute bill so obviously being slipped in under the wire?
The answer to this question may be as simple of the identity of the lobbyist whose job it was to pass the bill. Megan Dubray is the registered lobbyist for Springleaf Financial, one of the two major lending companies who would benefit most from House Bill 1390’s dramatic hike in subprime personal loan interest rates. If Dubray’s name rings a bell to you, it’s because she used to be the Deputy Communications Director for former Democratic House Speaker Mark Ferrandino.
In short, Dubray is a friendly face to Democrats in the Colorado House majority, and we have to assume that relationship played a role in both the late introduction of House Bill 1390–which required the consent of House leadership–and its quick passage through the House with most Democrats in support. The difference between House Democrats’ overwhelming support for House Bill 1390 and the opposition encountered from most Senate Democrats can be at least partly accounted for by Dubray’s role in lobbying for the bill.
Assuming this version of events is accurate, does it excuse Democrats in the House? Absolutely not–no matter how outwardly persuasive a case was being made to pass this bill, or who was doing the lobbying, allowing such enormous rate hikes on loans made to people who are already in credit trouble is exploitative and morally questionable on its face. Especially considering the huge profits subprime lenders are raking in as the economy recovers, the argument that this industry would simply pack up and leave the hundreds of millions of dollars they’re making here on the table if they don’t get these rate hikes is simply ridiculous. And there’s just no excuse for so many Democratic lawmakers not realizing that.
Bottom line: all the Democratic votes in the world for this bill do not make it right. A Democratic lobbyist pushing this bill does not make it right. Whatever happens to House Bill 1390, soul-searching lies ahead for everyone who contributed to this ugly situation.
We’ll continue to update as the story develops.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Hick Smacks Down Even More Straight-Up Lying From Amendment 80 Campaign
BY: cgrandits
IN: Here’s What YOU Think is Happening in Colorado’s Tightest Congressional Races
BY: joe_burly
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Hick Smacks Down Even More Straight-Up Lying From Amendment 80 Campaign
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Right?!? And, here I've been thinking these many years, wrongly apparently, that soul-searching might involve, you know, a little bit of soul-having . . .
Sorry, no. This was a big mistake but we are still talking about people we trust to do the right thing. A lot of yes votes on this bad bill have "souls." Let's keep this in perspective for all of our sakes.
Lobbyists are paid to represent their industry. Confused about how a lot of circumstantial evidence around the passage of a bill justifies a personal hit on someone…
"Personal hit?" This is valuable information the public should have on sausage making at the Capitol. I don't see any insult against Dubray, just recapping her role in passing the bill. Lobbyists are grownups who can defend themselves.
And hell yes lobbyists are "paid to represent their industry." But you're dead wrong to think there is no moral aspect to that. There goddamn well is, and if you don't like that, don't become a lobbyist.
Too easy then.
The lobbyist can create an account, logon, and sell COPOLS users on this bill. I'm sure it's happened before- though I don't recall anyone doing so openly.
Why is this bill a good idea? Persuade me.
Lobbyists as rule tend to give notice to all pertinent stakeholders on a bill, even the opposition, as a professional courtesy- particularly when that bill is a controversial one. Not to mention Dubray is a well known D operative who throws many fundraisers for Dems. I would think that professional courtesy would also extend to the Democrats she works to elect and let them know what voting on this bill means.
You spin me right round, baby, right round, like a record, baby, right round round round.
The revolving door, the Star-On machine of our political class. Unfortunately, instead of merely imprinting Sneetches, it turns public servants into lobbyists.
"How much do you make working for a legislator?"
"I'll tell you a year after I leave."
We disagreed about Steadman but you're right on this time. I wish the Amendment 41 revolving door provision applied to legislative staff too. It's a big loophole.
+10 points Pcat for the Dr. Seuss reference.
Do Lobbyists or Legislators have "Stars Upon Thars"?