Recently, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford vetoed H.3790, a payday loan bill that would have stretched the payment period from two weeks to four months (without changing the fees charged). Furthermore, H.3790 would have eliminated unsecured loans in South Carolina and outlawed the common practice of a customer presenting a lender with a post-dated check. The South Carolina House disagreed with Sanford’s move; they overturned his veto. In doing so, they also went against the governor’s veto of the portions of the bill that affected mortgage industry licensing fees.
Gov. Sanford and why he vetoed anti-payday loan bill
In a letter to the state House, Governor Mark Sanford writes regarding his veto of the payday loans bill that
“Although this type of regulation is intended to protect the public, these kinds of laws ultimately decrease the number and type of available financing options and make it harder for new lenders to enter the market. In other words, consumers have fewer choices and the available options become more expensive. … Some people will benefit from payday–style loans and some will not, and we continue to believe that individual consumers are better equipped than a government bureaucracy to know whether a short-term loan is a wise decision in any given circumstance.”
Allow the people to determine
As state legislators are less likely than credit-constrained consumers to have ever had the need for a pay day loan or similar loans with no credit check – whether they’re unsecured loans or not – it seems a lot more logical that consumers should be allowed to decide whether the pay day is a good deal for them. Gov. Mark Sanford can see that, so it’s strange that the South Carolina legislature can’t. As of now, pay day loan law in South Carolina allows borrowers one loan at a time, up to $550. This activity is tracked in an electronic database.
Another bill, one more overturned veto
A separate veto override against Sanford points back toward his history of impropriety along the Appalachian Trail, so to speak. As outlined by S.C. Politics Today, the second veto block kills Sanford’s objection that the bill would have “allowed data to be made public in a state ethics investigation of the governor when it indicates possible cause that a violation may have occurred”. That anti-veto vote blew past the 60 percent majority required; it was 102-2 against Sanford. Sanford has gone on record as saying that he vetoed the bill because he wanted the language of that bill expanded to contain all state lawmakers, not just the governor.
Find more info on this topic
thestatecom.typepad.com/ygatoday/2010/06/house-overrides-sanford-on-payday-lending-ethics.html
docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.scgovernor.com/NR/rdonlyres/A0AB7D58-484C-49EC-9DD7-856ED2D5D7C3/35671/H3790MortgageLoanOriginator.pdf
