Just lately, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford vetoed H.3790, a payday loans no faxing bill that would have stretched the payment period from two weeks to four months (without changing the fees charged). Not only that, but H.3790 was set to remove unsecured personal loans and the post-dated check system of payday loan company from South Carolina. The South Carolina House disagreed with Sanford’s move; they overturned his veto. The bill also affected regulation of licensing fees for the state’s mortgage industry.
Payday loan bill H.3790: Why Gov. Sanford said no
Gov. Sanford explained to the state legislature that his payday loans bill veto was warranted because
“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.”
The individuals should decide their financial course
It is common knowledge that state legislators are less likely to need a payday loans or comparable loans with no credit check – secured loans or otherwise – than the average credit-constrained consumer, so it is logical that consumers should be allowed to determine for themselves. Governor Sanford clearly sees the matter in those terms, even if his state’s legislature doesn’t. As of now, payday loan law in South Carolina allows borrowers one loan at a time, up to $550. Loan activity is tracked electronically.
More veto’s to be flipped in the Palmetto State
Another overturned veto ventures into territory of Mark Sanford’s alleged history of impropriety with South Carolina taxpayer funds. As outlined by S.C. Politics Today, the second veto block kills Sanford’s objection that the bill would have “allowed information to be made public in a state ethics investigation of the governor when it indicates possible cause that a violation may have occurred”. The vote against that veto was a massive 102-2. Sanford has gone on record as saying that he vetoed the bill because he wanted the language of that bill expanded to consist of all state lawmakers, not just the governor.
Additional information at these websites
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
