That what the 400,000 signatures represent.  The Columbus Dispatch story is here:

“This effort was a great opportunity to hear from Ohioans, and it’s clear from this massive number of signatures there is a strong sentiment among voters that politicians need to stop killing jobs and financial choices in the state,” said Bridgette Roman, legal counsel for Dublin-based Checksmart and a lead member of the payday coalition.

A “no” vote on the issue would allow lenders to continue charging a 391 percent annual interest rate ($15 per $100 on a two-week loan). A “yes” vote would limit lenders to a maximum 28 percent plus a $15 origination fee on a two-week loan. The fee difference on a $300 loan is $45 versus $18.

More than 400,000 turned in.   Read about it here.

Update:  This story has more detail, including quotes from Sandy Theis, the anti-payday lending spokeswoman who used to be a flack for the strip club industry. 

Here’s the lastest.

Cleveland Plain Dealer has its 432nd anti-payday lending editorial out today.   It calls for voting yes on the payday lending referendum.  (Remember, a Yes is to keep the rate cap law, a NO is to repeal it.)  It think it’s fair to say that the paper is worried that the law is going to be repealed by the voters.  

The good news is that given declining newspaper readership, the payday lending industry is likely to be around long after the Cleveland Plain Dealer writes its last editorial.

This is about the fifth or sixth story we’ve posted in the last several weeks about a Utah city restricting check cashers and payday lenders:

Provo would become the second Utah County city to regulate the lenders, joining Salt Lake County and communities in limiting where and how many check-cashing operations can set up shop.
    While advocates for the poor support city ordinances, they warn that the quotas won’t make much of a difference – as long as the businesses can still charge annual interest rates in excess of 500 percent.
    But the Utah Consumer Lending Association, a trade group representing payday lenders, says cities are actually hurting people who can’t go anywhere else to get emergency loans.

This article has us confused.   Here’s the headline: 

Economic Pinch Pushes More People to Payday Loans

Here’s the second paragraph:

The number of loans issued each month has been on the decline, according to state data, but the average loan amount has risen to $374 in the past year, compared with $350 from December 2005 to June 2006. 

From reader Chris:

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!!!

THIS is why I love this country!

Indeed.

This is over the top.  In the Virginia Daily Press today,  a guest writer invokes one of the greatest men who ever lived, William Wilberforce (see the movie “Amazing Grace” to learn more), in his screed against payday lenders: 

This commission can act with the boldness of William Wilberforce, the 19th century reformer who, against the powerful opposition of well-heeled commercial interests, led the effort for one of the greatest social reforms known to man, the abolition of the slave trade.

Well the Payday Pundit can be more pompous than some “consumer” advocate.  To paraphrase another great Enlishman,  payday lenders shall go on to the end…we shall fight on the beaches of Virginia, we shall fight on the landing grounds of the state capitol in Ohio, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets of California, we shall fight in the hills of Colorado, we shall never surrender.

This reporter  thinks that payday lenders are making $3,000 loans to military personnel that cost $5,000 to pay back at 36% interest.   

The Senator from Delaware is a good friend to credit card companies.  Seems like they’d rather have him in the Senate.  From the story:

Jaret Seiberg, a financial services policy analyst at the investment firm Stanford Group Co., said: “Credit card issuers were going to face an uphill battle if Obama won regardless of the vice presidential choice.”

 

“Our point is that Biden is unlikely to moderate Obama’s approach to credit card legislation as vice president, whereas he could have been a moderating influence on credit card legislation if he had remained in the Senate,” Seiberg said.

 

“To us, that means this selection is a negative for the credit card issuers.”