Mendacious payday lender front-woman Lisa Furlong won’t talk to South Dakota Public Broadcasting about her fake 18%-rate-cap petition:
The petition would only provide an 18 percent cap on verbal loan agreements, not those in writing. The backers of the 18-percent cap have refused an interview request following multiple attempts to reach them. Lisa Furlong is the petition organizer. She pointed instead to an interview completed by Dakota War College which is an internet blog. She claims the petition is thoughtful and real. Furlong did not answer questions about the exact wording in the proposed cap or who is behind the petition drive [Charles Michael Ray, “Payday Loan Interest Rate Cap Petitions Now Circulating,” SDPB Radio, 2015.08.26].
Charles Michael Ray is too polite to complete the description of DWC as an Internet blog committed to presenting industry spin on behalf of payday lenders and other friendly Republican donors. But Charles Michael Ray does the best he can from behind the veil of stern journalistic objectivity, pointing out exactly what Furlong’s fake rate cap promises: limits on verbal agreements, but no limits on loans created with written contracts, which would constitute every loan you will ever get from any payday lender.
For the record, I sent an e-mail to Furlong on August 10 requesting an interview. I have received no response. It is apparent that Furlong will only speak with the blogs who will not ask her to admit the real intent of her fake 18% rate cap petition.
Shame, shame, shame Furlong. Hiding your face is certainly appropriate for what you are doing.
“Religion & Ethics Newsweekly” appears on my local PBS station on Sunday mornings. It’s a very good show, well run and their investigations are thorough. This morning the show included a segment on payday lending in Alabama and what local churches are doing. I’ve included the link where you can see the show or read the transcript.
One of the most important aspects of laws written to limit interest rates is that the lenders have weaseled a way around it. The law applies to the payday loans, but when the terms of the loan expire the law no longer applies. So once it becomes overdue, the lender can jack up the rates. Does SD’s proposed law close that loop hole? This is critical.
Deb, Section 2 says “including all charges for any ancillary product or service and any other charge or fee incident to the extension of credit.” Section 3 says “No person may engage in any device, subterfuge or pretense to evade” the 36% rate cap. Would those lines close the term loophole?
It sounds effective to me. Thanks Cory.