We’ll let this article speak for itself.

For readers who are following the lawsuit in South Carolina, we received the following commentary from another reader.

John Hawkins is suing the industry saying that the Dept of Financial institutions (who is an impartial 3rd party and audits the companies), did not enforce the laws of SC. The DFI sits in judgment of the companies. The payday industry relies on the DFI’s audit to insure compliance. If Hawkins and his team get their way to interrupt the laws biased by making millions for themselves his only problem will be trying not to act surprised when they announce the outcome! Hey, if they win this one, all the judges of SC will want to get in on the next gig and demand a cut of the awards they sit in judgement of.

And the Morgan’s that Hawkins ‘claims’ to represent, ain’t that the guy that testified at Hawkins hearing that over the past two years he had paid over $22,000 in payday loan fees? That was the same hearing that the DFI testified that the average payday loan fee in SC was only $35! If you do the simply math $22,000/$35=628. That means over the last two years Mr.Morgan got 628 payday loans. If you do the math, that means this guy didn’t do this just 5 days a week, but got up early every morning 6 days a week and went out and got a new payday loan for 24 straight months. Here is another thing Hawkins does want to talk about. If they did spend $22,000 on payday loan fees, he got $147,000.00 (147,000 @ 15%= 22,000) IN CASH! What the hell did he do with that money, give it to Hawkins?

Hawkins started all this mess to create press for his UPCOMING lawsuit…..and then the surprised lawsuit!

The honest legislators that are not on the lawsuit have figured this out that the smell they smell isn’t the payday lenders! Hawkins has figured out a way to get around the donation caps and reporting requirements for benefits he receives personally for votes he cast.

So says some smart and iconoclast characters at FITSNEWS, a new online news site in South Carolina, who are watching the payday lending debate.   (For laughs, click on the sites “about us” section.)   From the piece:

Since the mainstream media refuses to pick up on the blatant legislative shakedown that’s taking place with respect to the payday lending debate, we view it as our obligation to continue reminding people that the only reason South Carolina is even considering banning the industry is that a couple of rich, ethically-challenged legislator-shysters want to get even richer.

Read the details here. 

This blurb from a South Carolina television station’s website will bring you up to date:

A House subcommittee will be tackling the issue of payday lending, working on a Senate bill that would put new limits on the industry. One of the main parts of the bill would limit customers to having only one outstanding loan at a time. Currently, some customers get deeper into debt by taking out new payday loans to pay off old ones.

So says Larry Wilson in the State Newspaper of South Carolina.   We don’t normally see much wisdom from the editorial page of this paper, but this is a guest columnist, not one of their regular writers.   Wilson, the chairman of the South Carolina Council on Education, says: 

A staff report of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concluded that consumers in Georgia and North Carolina have more debt and bankruptcies since those states banned payday loans.

The much wiser course is for government and the private sector to help consumers help themselves become economically literate. We need to educate, not overregulate.

The Payday Pundit applauds the State newspaper for giving space to Mr. Wilson. 

From an article out of Greenville, South Carolina today:

AnyKind Checks Cashed Inc. said in court filings that the city is denying its constitutional right to continue at 298 S. Pleasantburg Drive and doesn’t treat check-cashing firms equally. It also said the city has denied the business due process and interfered with a contract. The company asked for an injunction.

There will be a hearing Thursday in a South Carolina House subcommittee on the recently passed Senate bill.     This State Newspaper story says: 

This week, nearly 10 years after it legalized payday lenders, the S.C. General Assembly is on the verge of deciding whether to restrict them.

At 9 a.m. Thursday, a House subcommittee will hear testimony from consumer credit counselors and loan companies on a bill passed Feb. 19 by the Senate.

The Senate’s proposal could go into law if it passes the House, differences are worked out between House and Senate leaders, and it is signed by the governor.

If no action is taken before the session ends in June, the bill will die.

That would be Warren Bolton of the State Newspaper in South Carolina.  By far, Warren Bolton has written more anti-payday lending stories of anyone in the country: almost 40 over the past few years.   Like many “progressive” elitists, Bolton believes that citizens aren’t wise enough to make their own personal choices, but need guidance from their betters.   And any legislator who doesn’t take direction from Bolton is opposing the will of the people, which only Bolton knows. 

As an editor and columnist, Bolton is expected to offer opinions on issues affecting the paper’s readership.  But his personal jihad against the payday industry is unique; it’s obsessive, vehement, and scary.   That’s why we think of him as a ”stalker.” 

And we’re not the only ones who have problems with Bolton.   Check out this this old link  on “Warrin” Warren.

This editorial in the Greenville, SC newspaper sums up the state of play on payday lending legislation in the state.  The Payday Pundit doesn’t now enough about the legislation to comment intelligently on it, but I’m struck by the fact that the editorial used the word  ”reasonable” twice in referring to restrictions.

Do editorial writers really know enough about finance, economics and lending to know what’s “reasonable?”  The word “reasonable” is often invoked by debators to make whatever they say sound less extreme.