U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

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
March 30, 2010 10:37 PM UTC

Swing Curry (she coud be key payday vote)

  • 4 Comments
  • by: jaytee

( – promoted by Danny the Red (hair))

As wrangling continues over Mark Ferrandino’s payday regulation bill, the arguments for and against it have become clear. Gunnison Rep. Kathleen Curry, a co-sponsor of the bill, is now lined up against it, according to the Colorado Independent. Her personal back and forth is the larger debate in miniature.

Curry’s name now appears on the bill as a cosponsor. Don’t be confused, she said. She agreed to co-sponsor the legislation for its general thrust before she had seen the bill in its written form. Curry said that she was concerned about the ramifications of the regulations proposed in the bill as it was introduced.

“My primary reason for not wanting to vote for it is that a number of people would be laid off due to contraction in the industry,” she said. She believes the industry is likely exaggerating the negative effects of the legislation but, still, even half the number of layoffs lobbyists are throwing around would be too many, she said.

Curry said she’s willing to talk about getting to a yes vote.

“Rep. Ferrandino is worried about this for all the right reasons,” she said. “If he were able to address my concerns about how many shops would be shut down, I would definitely consider that” …

Curry said she’s doing her own math on what the interests rates should be.

“I am going to have to figure out who is telling me the truth [about what will keep payday lenders in business]. Some kind of midrange APR is needed. Somewhere in between 36 percent [the top bank rate] and 400 percent [the payday rate] that would allow these operations to stay open.”

Convince Curry and the arguments against the bill from anybody else will ring especially hollow.

Comments

4 thoughts on “Swing Curry (she coud be key payday vote)

  1. Since her switch (and to a lesser extent beofre)  Curry has seemed determined to be a contrary mary!  She was for lifting Arveschoug-Bird before she was against it, joined republicans in their grandstanding on the budget, and now can’t even support a bill she’s a cosponsor on!  The bill is written exactly the same as last time around, how could she not know?  Not much difference is gong from a 36% cap to a 36% cap!  

    Poor thing is just confused about what party she belongs do and what positions she wants to take…

  2. I get the feeling she’s kind of incompetent about the effects of the bills she cosponsors take for example, 1188.

    Kathleen, of course there is going to be contraction from these regs, there is something called A GIANT FUCKING BUBBLE in the payday industry and can you begin to comprehend what that equates to? It means it is unsustainable. It’s not good business practice.  

  3. Ferrandino needs at least one Republican to vote for this to get it out of the House. The last go-round, that was Ellen Roberts, who I hear will not support it this time.

    Ferrandino’s bigger problem is the six Democrats who voted against the same bill in 2008 who are still in the House today. That’s Rice, Benefield, Riesberg, Labuda, McFadyen and McKinley.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

78 readers online now

Newsletter

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