Petitioners collecting signatures for the fake 18% rate cap at SDSU yesterday appeared unable to give signers accurate information about the proposed constitutional amendment they are circulating.
SDSU student Cully Williams found at least three circulators working the fake 18% rate cap and Marsy’s Law petitions (again, that shady association reported by Matt Hildreth Tuesday) outside the SDSU Student Union yesterday. He stopped at their table to ask some questions. As this video shows, he got some wildly misleading answers:
Here’s my transcript of the relevant dialogue:
[Circulator 1, seated, in the “Proud to Be an American” shirt]: The second one is regarding payday loans. It’s to make the companies more transparent with their interest rates. They can’t just charge whatever they feel like it. After it gets up to 18%, they have to notify the customers. Every time they raise the interest rate, they have to notify the customers [petition circulator, recorded by Cully Williams, Brookings, SD, 2015.09.17].
Stop right there. Let’s read the fake 18-percenters’ proposed constitutional amendment:
No lender may charge interest for the loan or use of money in excess of eighteen per cent per annum unless the borrower agrees to another rate in writing. No law fixing an annual percentage rate of interest for the loan or use of money is valid unless the law provides borrowers the right to contract at inteerst rates as may be agreed to by the parties.
No law fixing a rate of interest or return for the loan or use of money, or fixing the service or any other charge that may be made or imposed for the loan or use of money, for any particular group or class engaged in lending money is valid. Any rate of interest or charge fixed by law shall apply generally and to all lenders without regard to the type or classification of the lender’s business [decoy amendment, submitted by Lisa Furlong, South Dakotans for Fair Lending, first published on Dakota Free Press, 2015.07.13].
Nothing in that text says what the circulator just said about notifying customers of increases in interest rates.
Now, does the 18% amendment really cap interest rates at 18%?
[Williams]: So they can’t put the interest rate over 18%?
[C1]: Right. Well, they can do it over 18%, but the customer has to be notified that that’s happening.
[W]: So… I think I’m missing something here. So this doesn’t cap the rate?
[W]: So what’s it do then, if it doesn’t cap the rate?
[C1]: It makes it so they have to be notified if the interest rate goes up above 18% [Williams video, 2015.09.17].
So this doesn’t cap the rate? No. Boom—there you have it, one of petition sponsor Lisa Furlong’s own circulators telling you what I’ve reported consistently since Furlong’s proposal went public: it is a fake rate cap.
So what about this measure’s impact on the real 36% rate cap petition intended to curb the predatory payday lending industry?
[W]: Does it also ban the one that actually does cap the rate at 36%?
[C1]: No, these two are not exclusive. You can vote for both of them.
[W]: O.K., but this one doesn’t have text that would explicitly ban a statutory cap of 36%?
[C1]: No, there’s two of them out now.
[W]: I know, but… if I read this one here, it says… “This amendment eliminates the ability to set statutory interest rates that are inconsistent with this amendment” which would not allow a 36% interest rate, since the 18% only applies to verbal, so that would actually ban a cap on that, is what this would do, unless I’m reading that wrong.
[C1]: I… go ask that lady, the pregnant lady. She can explain it. Did you sign it? [Williams video, 2015.09.17].
Williams reads Attorney General Marty Jackley’s explanation of the fake 18% rate cap pretty accurately. Confronted with the text in her own hand, this circulator has to eject. So bring on the help—a pregnant lady! She wouldn’t try to mislead us, would she?
[Circulator 2, standing, in yellow t-shirt]: It’s basically so that when your interest rate goes up above 18%, the lenders contact you and make sure that you know that your interest rate is increasing, so they have to like let you know, because it goes up to like 300% interest and things like that really fast, based virtually without people even noticing…. It’s about like having more disclosure [Williams video, 2015.09.17].
Oh, she would! Her response is a strange mix of fantasy—again, the proposed amendment says nothing about notifications or disclosure or increasing rates—and ugly fact. I’m surprised she’s allowed to even mention the triple-digit interest rates that payday lenders charge.
Back to the next big question: does this amendment really cap interest rates?
[Williams]: Does it actually cap interest rates?
[C2]: No, that’s the other one. I wish I had that one [Williams video, 2015.09.17].
Fascinating! We now have a second circulator confirming that the 18% petition is a fake rate cap! As a bonus, this fake 18-percenter acknowledges that “the other one,” the 36% rate cap petition brought to us by Steve Hildebrand and Steve Hickey, is the real one. She even says she wishes she had that one. (Ma’am, click here to contact the real 36-percenters… and save your mortal soul!)
Now the big legal question: is the fake 18% rate cap really just a trick to abolish the real 36% rate cap?
[W]: Does this one ban capping interest rates by statutory law, because there’s a clause in there that does say that, so this would actually ban an actual cap, because it’s a constitutional amendment.
[C2]: I don’t know. I know there’s like a few of them out there. That’s a great question. I don’t know.
[W]: Because it kinda does, so I was just seeing if I’m misreading that.
[C2]: There was a plebiscite that was out there before that I believe is the one that you are talking about, and then they came out with a new one. But I… I don’t know, I’m going to be honest with you [Williams video, 2015.09.17].
I’m going to be honest with you—I don’t know where anyone on the street in South Dakota comes up with the phrase “There was a plebiscite.” (As a weekend diversion, I invite readers to find any instance of the word plebiscite being used in the South Dakota press and blogosphere.)
[W]: I mean like when I read it, with signatures on it, it actually said that it would ban statutory caps—
[C2]: Oh really?
[C2]: O.K., good to know.
[W]: I just didn’t know if I’m misreading it or—
[C2]: Um, no, I don’t know. That’s good to know. I should go over it, too. Have a good day.
[W]: Thanks. You too [Williams video, 2015.09.17].
So instead of explaining the amendment, as the first circulator said she could, the second circulator ends up admitting she hasn’t really gone over the petition she’s urging people to sign. Sigh.
Williams figures he’s had enough, but on his way (to her credit! Always Be Closing!), the first circulator takes another shot for his signature. Williams learns that this gal has been watching the news:
[Circulator 1]: Did you… sign it?
[Williams]: Let me read that one more time. Maybe I’m just off base here…. “This amendment eliminates the ability to set statutory interest rates that are inconsistent with this amendment.” Hey, are the guys that were on KELOLand?
[W]: You were?
[W]: Are you from South Dakota?
[C1]: Yes, I am. I can show you my ID—
[W]: No, I’ll take your word for it.
[C1]: Yeah, they… I think they even took a picture of him [pointing to other circulator on sidewalk] but his person was with him and they just left the person out… they didn’t take a picture of the person. So it really messed us up [Williams video, 2015.09.17].
This circulator and her partners may not have to run from Angela Kennecke’s blue dress for breaking petition law, but they prove that the petitioners carrying the fake 18% rate cap are either unable or unwilling to tell signers the truth about this decoy petition.
Every bank loan gets signed by both the borrower and the lender. The lender always determines the interest rate and the customer takes it or leaves it. This law would make all other limitations on interest as worthless as toilet paper.
Exactly, Roger. The 18% rate “cap” is a sham, simply writing current predatory practices into the state constitution and shielding them from necessary regulation.
Actually Roger E., toilet paper has a very useful purpose, this fake petition has only one purpose and that is charge people unrealistic interest rates.
Time to turn this evidence over to Sergeant Joe Friday and Officer Bill Gannon and let the Dragnet bring justice down on Furlong’s group. Of course she can always claim they misrepresented her petition or it was taken out of context.
More and more evidence shows up everyday that Furlong and Glodt are LCD people. (Lowest Common Denominator) You know, the type with no morals who’ll do anything for money. Apparently Furlong and Glodt have joined the Sleezeball Brigade that has been invading SD this summer. Clearly those two, and their owners, have very low regard for the fine citizens of SD. I believe South Dakotans are smarter than that.
Ms Deb,did you get your paint by the dumbers Trump plaything from TWMDBS,yet?
No. I’m just on my over there, so I’ll keep an eye peeled for it.
(Where did “keep an eye peeled for it,” ever come from? It sounds so painful!)
98 months ago, a commenter on that site said he thought it sounded painful too. That’s a Faux Noise 100% level of proof that my comment was not weird.
Don’t expect any coverage on this from KSFY, one of their news sponsors is Chuck Brennan’s Badlands Pawn.
Why not stand beside the booth and tell people the truth that the fake 18% is actually a fake? That seems to me as legal as what this fraud is.
Good question Jerry. Does anyone know the answer?
Actually, Scott, KSFY gave Hildebrand and Hickey good ink (electrons) this summer:
KSFY did sloppy work on the fake petition when it emerged at the Sioux Empire Fair:
But KSFY does appear not to be covering this week’s hubbub about petition circulators.
Jerry, the payday lenders engaged in “blocking” against rate-cap petitioners in Missouri:
It sounds ugly to me.
C1 was back at it at the Sioux Falls Farmer’s Market today. These paid circulators are probably desperate for money to pay off their payday loans.
C1, same gal? Interesting that she made the trip. Is she from South Dakota? Sad to think these folks could well be payday lending customers.
Yes, same “woman”. Don’t say “gal” (shame shame shame). I didn’t talk to her. She said on camera she was from SD. Kind of wishing I had checked her out before putting on my 36% t-shirt.
You have a 36% shirt? Where do I get one for myself and a couple for the gals in my house?
Reynold Nesiba had the shirts. They do help people understand who we are…especially with the press about the blue Marsy’s law shirts.
Shirts are good. So are ID badges. Establish recognizability and credibility, and don’t be afraid to answer questions.