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

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams

55%↑

45%↓

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
April 23, 2016 10:32 AM UTC

Shark Attack: Who's Taking Loan Shark Money in Colorado?

  • 22 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

sharkattack

As another late bill, Senate Bill 16-185, to allow subprime personal lenders to charge higher interest rates on bigger loans makes its way through the Colorado Senate–debate of the whole chamber on the bill was scheduled for yesterday but punted to Monday–Colorado Ethics Watch released a detailed report on the influence of the subprime personal lending industry over both parties in the Colorado General Assembly. It’s a must-read: if you have the stomach for it, that is.

Because if you’re a liberal Democrat, you’ve got some friends on the list.

While the initial increase that would be permitted if SB 16-185 passes is smaller than the increase House Bill 15-1390 would have authorized, lenders would be able to continually increase loan sizes subject to 36% APR because the cap number would be indexed to inflation. As a result, the effective interest rate for loans greater than $1,000 would continue to increase as inflation increases, trapping greater numbers of Coloradans in the cycle of debt.

Spurred by these incidents, Colorado Ethics Watch investigated lobbying spending and campaign contributions by the major proponents of House Bill 15-1390, Springleaf Finance and Independent Bankers of Colorado, along with other organizations known to be involved in subprime lending from their participation in lobbying on the 2010 payday lending reforms. These lenders and their associated PACs spent more than $730,000 on lobbying from fiscal year 2012 through 2015…

The big sum spent on lobbying is what funded the efforts of Democratic-friendly lobbyists like former Deputy House Communications Director Megan Dubray–who were key to successfully rushing the 2015 bill through the Democratic-controlled House without the scrutiny it deserved. Studies by the Center for Responsible Lending and others have identified a deliberate strategy of courting Democratic support for predatory lending bills, under the pretense of providing “access to credit” for persons who wouldn’t otherwise be able to get a loan.

And be assured, Colorado’s strict campaign finance limits have not cut off the direct flow of campaign cash to lawmakers–just spread it out a little:

In addition to lobbying, subprime and payday lenders gave $126,925.01 in contributions to various candidates and committees between 2012 and 2015. For example, industry participants and associated groups such as political action committees gave $32,526.32 in contributions to legislators in the 2016 Colorado General Assembly. Even though political contribution amounts were not large due to Colorado’s strict campaign contribution limits, they were widely distributed among members of the 2016 legislature. More than two-thirds of the 2016 legislature, including 37 Democrats and 31 Republicans, [Pols emphasis] received contributions from industry participants or their associated PACs…

Here are the top 12 recipients of predatory lender cash in the Colorado General Assembly, listed with their vote on House Bill 15-1390:

loansharkdonations

The underlying point here is that Republicans can be fully expected to receive support from predatory lenders, and to reciprocate freely with votes that support the industry’s legislative agenda. But in Colorado’s divided legislature, support of at least some Democrats is necessary to pass anything. Consequently of the top six recipients of predatory lending cash on this list, four are Democrats. The top recipient just so happens to have been a Democratic “no” vote on last year’s bill.

It’s important to recognize that nothing we’re describing here is out of the ordinary for an industry seeking favorable treatment in the legislature. Lobbyists with good relationships with lawmakers work their connections. People and companies make perfectly legal donations. Lawmakers vote on stuff. There’s no conspiracy.

The problem is that, while legally operating, these lenders are objectively bad actors. Their products do not help people, they hurt them by strapping them with unaffordable and often inescapable debtby design. The extreme and in many cases hidden costs of borrowing money from predatory lenders is a moral as well as an economic problem, and the decision to regulate interest rates and keep loan terms fair is a moral judgment also made with the demonstrable best economic interests of consumers in mind.

So yes, there’s a lot at stake. And legislators–especially self-professed progressive Democratic legislators–who side with these loan sharks over their constituents should pay their own price.

Comments

22 thoughts on “Shark Attack: Who’s Taking Loan Shark Money in Colorado?

  1. Fantastic report.  Colorado, as bad as it is, is but a microcosm of the insatiable grasping of these predators (the sub-prime lenders) … 

    Campaign finance / Lobbying reform? . . . Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

     

    BTW, as someone who has spent time among predatory lenders and their advocates (too much), and among real sharks (far too little), I am very much personally offended for the sharks by any comparisons …

  2. I'm confused.  I agree with what you wrote.  If I substitute "Wall Street" for "predatory lenders" (not sure I need to make the distinction), though, I've been told multiple times by folks on this site that I'm supposed to come to an entirely opposite conclusion.

  3. 1) Has the Colorado Conference of Catholic Bishops taken a position on the bill? (rhetorical, but humor me).

    2) Good on Mary Hodge. Idalia schools taught her well. Her mother was a legendary biology and math teacher at Idalia High School. Wonderful, wonderful lady. The apple didn't fall far from the tree. 

  4. The top two recipients are term-limited Democrats, so that's just a fucking buyout. Crisanta and Angela are unfortunately not surprising. This whole issue just makes me sad, not in the Trump way but for real.

      1. Hodge voted against the limited payday lending "reform" passed back in 2010 (along with Linda Newell and Lois Tochtrop).  Now, that may have been because she believed, like Tochtrop, that reining in the lenders even that little bit would force people to turn to literal loan sharks, and "They’re going to have broken legs and won’t have money to get that fixed, either," or she may have supported the status quo.

        Her opposition to the industry is inconsistent, at least.

  5. Mountains out of mole hills.  If you had shown me $25,000 to a single candidate I could maybe see the concern.  No candidate here is at 10% of that and some of those listed are at the three figure range.   Don't you think those numbers are a little small to seriously influence policy?

        1. Well, remember than Dante reserved the lowest circle of hell for those who retained their neutrality in the fight between good and evil.  I was a Republican for 33 years.  But the party is now ruled by neo-Brown Shirts for Trump  and RINOFIRs.  (Republican in Name Only, Fascist in Reality) behind Cruz. The few voices of reason, like John Katich, sorely need you at their side. 

          1. I don't believe either party is good or evil.  I have some very prominent friends high up at each and they are good people.

            I have also seen real idiots and jerks in each.

    1. In all fairness, Elliot, you're probably right (… although I don't know what price is affixed to J. Pauls measley soul …) in that these contributions probably didn't "buy" anyone …

      … in these cases, all of these legislators were likely simply acting much like pay toilets, granting access for the correct amount of coin …

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

88 readers online now

Newsletter

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