The tone of this editorial annoys me:

Meantime, it makes sense for Columbia to do what it can to protect citizens. It won’t stop lenders from preying on borrowers, but it could limit where they locate, preserve neighborhood decorum and – who knows? – perhaps save some from unnecessary debt.

Why don’t they “protect” their citizens fall all debt?  Take away their credit cards, car loans, mortgages.   See what life is like then.

How does that work?  Can’t can more confused than the editors at the State (S.C.) newspaper:

As we’ve said before, the measure doesn’t go far enough, and so we believe it would have been better if lawmakers had ditched this incremental effort and started anew next year in an attempt to pass stronger rules. On the other hand, we can understand why lawmakers committed to stronger regulation took what they could get this year with hopes of making improvements as annual monitoring of payday lending unearths further problems.

As the Payday Pundit has said before, we think the editors at the State newspaper won’t be satisfied until consumers rely only on the government to meet unexpected expenses.

Warren Bolton, the State (S.C.) newspaper columnist who–how shall we say this?–is obsessed with the payday lending industry, wrote this in a column today:

Free enterprise didn’t create payday lending; the Legislature did.

How absurd.  The legislature put up the money to open stores?  The legislature came up with the business model?  The legislature pays employees, pays rent and taxes?  Even for Warren Bolton, this is crazy.

Bettors like the odds.

From the story:

 Gov. Mark Sanford has vetoed a bill that would put limits on the state’s payday lending industry. Sanford, known for his libertarian leanings, argued in his veto message that South Carolinians should be free to make whatever financial decision they choose.

Sanford was also disagreed with establishing a statewide database to track loans, saying such a database might compromise the privacy rights of borrowers.

Governor weighing veto of new bill.  Not many details in this story.   In any case, he has until tonight to sigh or veto.

Final post  on South Carolina.    For now.

S..C. amended and sent to the House a payday lending bill.  From the story:

The Senate vote for passage, 41-4, broke a four-month long General Assembly impasse.

Sen. Joel Lourie, D-Richland, a co-sponsor of the compromise amendment that broke impasse, said he expects the House of Representatives to accept the Senate version of the bill, without a need for further action.

If that happens, the bill would go downstairs for the governor to sign or veto.

The compromise raises the maximum payday loan amount to $550 from $350, and limits outstanding loans to one at a time by way of a database that will track borrowers.

We’re trying to learn if the House had time to pass it.  They were supposed to adjourn at 5:00.

Update:  The House then signed off on it 102-6.

The writers at the State (S.C.) newspaper have no quit in ‘em.

From the State (S.C.) Newspaper:

The Senate refused again Tuesday to act on payday lending legislation, invoking a seldom-used Senate rule to delay debate for a day and move on to other bills.

The Senate is speeding toward a May 21st adjournment, with growing sentiment among legislators to wrap up all business this week, including vetoes. That makes today crucial in deciding if the state adopts regulations for a business that has operated for a decade without regulation.

“I hope we carry it over 24 more hours, and 24 more hours after that, right on into next year,” said Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, one of the Senate’s most vocal payday lending opponents.

We’ve learned out lesson.  Never  be optimistic when it comes to predicting what’s going to happen in a state legislature.