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%
April 15, 2010 10:02 PM UTC
25 Comments
more here – http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
ps – how many votes for/against?
Division was requested, so there were at least 33 who stood up for it. Back here in the office, we weren’t able to tell the breakdown. We’ll try to get the number, or maybe someone else will post it.
Cheers, anyway.
There has been some question about just how many people stood up for and against the bill. There were five Democrats who voted against it: Labuda, Rice, Riesberg, Benefield (all who voted against it in 2008) and Schafer. No Republicans voted for it.
That would make the vote 33-31 (Sonnenberg was absent today) assuming all the Democrats were on the floor. There’s some question about that – someone may have been off teh floor for the vote – one legislator told me there were only 32 votes in favor.
Only the sorriest junkies among us can’t wait for tomorrow’s journal.
Wandering around the Capitol you can always tell the really sad lost souls – they had the pages of the journal in hand. And, they are not the sgt at arms, lobbyists, legislators or aides.
The vote from Thursday will NOT be in the journal on Friday; it wasn’t a recorded vote. You had to be there to know who was voting which way.
So it might not have passed at all.
This should put a crimp in the illegal alien crowds’ wire to cheating the American taxpayers.
The illegals’ tool belt will tighten when this passes – forcing movement or a spike in the underground economy.
They should start planning their moves back to Russia, Ireland, Costa Rica, etc… or they can always move out of state and be another American states’ burden.
Step away from the hallucinogens, Libby.
And it smells so good!
with their clever ways of exploiting being exploited so that they can cheat real ‘murrican taxpayers….by wearing tight belts?
huh?
Voted against…
It passes the House on third reading when enough Rep’s light up the green light.
What is amazing is that the good Representatives of Colorado could not even equal the Federal government on limiting the industry to 36%, which is what the active duty military is ripped off at.
The root of the problem lies in the lack of financial education. Whether it be in our homes or schools, financial education is crucial.
Our lawmakers are seeking to regulate the industry, but they AREN’T pushing for financial literacy education in our schools.
Do we really believe regulation will eradicate this problem? Poor people who lack access to traditional banking institutions (or simply fear them) will continue to flock to non-traditional predatory lenders and such lenders will continue to find a way to rip them off. We need more education, or even just SOME financial education in our schools.
TheBell, you have been fighting against payday lending for a long time. Why not fight for financial literacy education instead of just regulation? Seems like you might be able to get some Rs on board.
Why do payday lenders have an exemption from the state’s usury laws?
How much would the average payday borrower be helped by the new regulation, and how much more quickly could they repay the loan with that help? How much better off would that person be, and how much more productive to our society would they be if they did not have to carry their debts for so long with such an outrageous effective interest rate?
Unless you want enforced financial education, you will not do as effective a job via education as you would via common sense regulation.
I’m not against this legislation, though it could potentially have the impact of driving out payday lenders and driving the poor to pawnshops and other markets, we don’t know right now. There has simply been no thought on the impacts other than “this is good!” How many of these legislators have talked with a payday loan shark and their customers? In many cases they (sadly) have a close relationship, like the days of small-town bankers. Traditional banks will never fill this void as it is too great of a financial risk.
That point aside, I am fine with requiring financial education. Our requirements deal with English, Science, Math and History. All good things. But why not Finances? Something that every student would benefit from an exposure to no matter what they choose to do after high school.
It makes too much sense in my mind…what am I missing? This could be a bi-partisan bill. Of course finances are a tricky thing to teach and there could be bias involved, but then so is every subject.
So, what do you think the chances are? Who would fight against it? Where do I send my proposal for the curriculum? ….I’ve given this a lot of thought since identifying it as a pro-active solution to help victims of predatory lending.
Seriously…
If we added financial eduction to the bill do you seriously think it would increase the number of votes (not that it matters at this point, since it passed the House)?
I’m sorry, I fail to see anyone charging 380% APR in interest/fees as a benefit to society. The only financial education I see as a positive step in this discussion is: if you’re paying more than 4-5% in interest and fees per month, you’re getting ripped off.
On a state and national level I don’t think some regulations are bad. I just don’t think we can ever have enough regulations or agencies in place to truly protect consumers.
Education won’t be a cure-all either, but it is a travesty we don’t offer financial literacy (not just investments/econ) in most schools.
Please also note I never said they benefit society, but payday lenders ARE relied upon and have built a relationship with their clients. When most traditional bankers see people that appear to be poor they don’t value them the same way. In this sense, the poor people using predatory lenders are acting rationally. They like being respected and valued.
Large banks will never lend $300 to the payday lender’s clientele at 5%…unless they are ALSO legally required to do so because the costs to service such a high-risk loan are much greater. If they were required to do so, it would require a completely new set of underwriting guidelines.
Sorry, but you are clearly out of touch with poor people in Colorado. I am vehemently opposed to traditional payday lending. I’m looking to implement solutions that will help the poor and less fortunate in our state. I think they exist, and I think they must be implemented or the poor people will just go to pawnshops and rent-to-own stores. Check out North Carolina Credit Union’s payday lending alternative, or if you want I can send you a more in-depth report on the issue.
But first, swing by your local rent-to-own store. I almost guarantee someone will come in to pay their bill and they will also have to pay a late fee. It is depressing to be in there.
Regulating payday lending provides no alternative or real answer to the true problem. Poor people with bad credit run into tough times or emergencies and need cash. They make unwise financial choices at nearly every turn.
Ok, hope that helped explain my crazy idea of education and why it is necessary. And I didn’t even make a joke about not knowing what “bi-partisan” means…
Was 32-31… So hopefully it was a democrat in favor of the bill that was missing.
And Casso deserves no props for this, he couldn’t even decide how he was voting till the last minute. He goes on and on about protecting working families with his union bullshit, but then can’t easily decide to protect them from loan sharking?
The big props go to Rep. McFayden and Rep. McKinley for voting no in ’08 and voting yes this time around.
Sonnenberg was absent, and he’s a no. One Democrat was off the floor during the vote and we don’t know who that was. So nothing is certain at this point.