BE IT ENACTED BY THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA:
Section 1. Title
This measure shall
be known as the Payday Loan Reform Act.
Section 2. Purpose and Intent
The people of Arizona
declare that the intent and purpose of this Act is to:
1. Reduce the cost
of small dollar, short-term consumer loans;
2. Promote responsible
consumer lending practices;
3. Provide consumers
with borrowing options on fair terms that allow a reasonable time to repay
a loan;
4. Regulate the covered
products in a comprehensive and efficient manner;
5. Make clear that
internet lenders are subject to the laws of this State; and,
6. Reduce the number
of store-front locations in our neighborhoods.
Section 3. 6-1251,
Arizona Revised Statutes is amended to read:
6-1251. Definitions
In this chapter, unless
the context otherwise requires:
1. "Branch office" means
any office operated by a licensee to provide deferred presentment services.
2. "Check" means
a draft signed by the maker and made payable to a person that is licensed
pursuant to this chapter with the name of the maker preprinted on the face
of the check OR AN ELECTRONIC DEBIT AGREEMENT THAT
COMPLIES WITH TITLE 44, CHAPTER 26.
3. "Deferred presentment
services" means a transaction pursuant to a written agreement in which
the licensee accepts a check and agrees to hold the check for at least
five days before presentment for payment or deposit.
4. "Engaged in
the business" means either:
(a) Advertising to
or any other solicitation of a resident of this state that offers deferred
presentment services and that occurs within this state.
(b) Providing three
or more deferred presentment services within a calendar year to residents
of this state.
5. "License" means
a license issued pursuant to this chapter.
6. "Licensee" means
a corporation, company, firm, partnership, association or natural person
that is licensed by the superintendent to engage in the business of providing
deferred presentment services pursuant to this chapter.
7. "Location" means
the entire space in which a licensee provides deferred presentment services.
8. "Partner" means
a person who either:
(a) Is authorized by
law or a partnership agreement to participate in the management of the
business of the partnership.
(b) Owns more than
twenty-five per cent of the applicant or licensee partnership.
Section 4. 6-1254,
Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
6-1254. Qualifications of applicants
A. An applicant for
a license:
1. Shall be a citizen
of the United States.
2. Shall be a person
of honesty, truthfulness and good moral character.
3. Shall not have been
convicted of a crime that involves moral turpitude.
4. Shall not have defaulted
on payment of money collected or received for another person.
5. Shall not have been
a former licensee pursuant to this chapter whose license was suspended
or revoked and not subsequently reinstated.
B. If the applicant
is a person other than a natural person, the qualifications required by
subsection A are also required of any executive officer, director or partner
of the firm, partnership or association.
C. To qualify for a
license an applicant shall have AND MAINTAIN:
1. A minimum net worth
in cash or cash equivalents, determined in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, of at least fifty thousand dollars, PER
LICENSED LOCATION, UP TO A MAXIMUM REQUIRED NET WORTH OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
2. The financial responsibility,
character and experience to warrant a belief that the business is operated
lawfully, honestly, fairly and efficiently.
Section 5. 6-1259,
Arizona Revised Statutes is amended to read:
6-1259. Prohibited acts
A. A person shall not
engage in the business of providing deferred presentment services, including
internet deferred presentment services, without first obtaining a license
pursuant to this chapter. A separate license is required for each location
from which the business is conducted. The licensee shall post its license
to engage in the business of deferred presentment services at each location
that is licensed pursuant to this chapter.
B. A licensee shall
not:
1. Advance monies on
the security of a check without first obtaining reasonable evidence that
indicates that the account on which the presented check is drawn is an
open and active account.
2. Assess any fee that
is more than the amount prescribed in this chapter.
3. At the licensed
location engage in the business of:
(a) Making loans of
money or extensions of credit other than those allowed under this chapter TITLE or
title 44, chapter 11, article 3.
(b) Discounting notes,
bills of exchange, items or other evidences of debt.
(c) Accepting deposits
or bailments of money or items, except as expressly provided in section
6-1260.
4. Use or cause to
be published or disseminated any advertisement that contains false, misleading
or deceptive statements or representations.
5. Engage in the business
of deferred presentment services at locations other than licensed locations.
6. Engage in unfair,
deceptive or fraudulent practices.
7. Alter or delete
the date on a check accepted by the licensee.
8. Take possession
of an undated check or a check dated on a date other than the date on which
the licensee takes possession of the check or the date of presentment.
9. Require a customer
to provide security for the transaction, other than the presented check,
or require the customer to provide a guaranty from another person.
10.
Fail to take reasonable measures to ensure that no customer has more
than one deferred presentment loan outstanding at any time with any licensee
in this state.
11. Engage
in the sale of the following goods or services at any licensed location:
(a) Gaming activities,
including the sale of lottery tickets.
(b) Alcoholic beverages.
12. Tie
or otherwise condition the offering of deferred presentment services to
the sale of any good or service.
13. Permit
others to engage in any activity prohibited in this section at a location
licensed pursuant to this chapter.
14. Offer
deferred presentment services for less than five days OR
LONGER THAN THIRTY FIVE DAYS.
15.
Be required to request or accept any written representation by a customer
as to whether the customer has any outstanding checks for deferred presentment
held by other licensees.
15.
Charge a prepayment penalty.
16. ENTER
INTO A NEW DEFERRED PRESENTMENT TRANSACTION WITH A CUSTOMER UNTIL THE
NEXT BUSINESS DAY FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF A PRIOR TRANSACTION, INCLUDING
A REPAYMENT PLAN TRANSACTION.
Sec. 6. Section 6-1260,
Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
6-1260.
Deferred
presentment; amount; fees; loans to members of military service; repayment
plans
A. The licensee may
accept for deferred presentment or deposit a check with a face amount of
at least fifty dollars but not more than five hundred dollars, excluding
the fees permitted in subsection F G of
this section.
B. For each check the
licensee accepts for deferred presentment or deposit,
the licensee and the customer shall sign a written agreement IN ENGLISH OR IN SPANISH AT THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST that contains the
name or trade name of the licensee, the transaction date, the amount of
the check, the amount to be paid by the maker, a statement of the total
amount of the fees charged, expressed both as a dollar amount and as an
effective annual percentage rate, a disclosure statement that complies
with state and federal truth in lending laws and a notice to the customer
as prescribed in subsection C of this section. The written agreement shall
expressly require the licensee to defer presentment or deposit of the check
until a specified date.
THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ADJACENT TO THE CUSTOMER SIGNATURE LINE:
1. THE TELEPHONE NUMBER AND ADDRESS OF THE DEPARTMENT.
2. THE LICENSEE IS REGULATED BY THE DEPARTMENT.
3. ANY COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE AGREEMENT MAY BE ADDRESSED TO THE DEPARTMENT AT THE DEPARTMENT'S ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER.
C. A licensee shall
provide a notice in a prominent place on each written agreement that specifies
that no customer may have outstanding more than one deferred presentment
service agreement at one time and the face amount, exclusive of any fees,
cannot be more than five hundred dollars. A licensee shall
ask every customer who seeks deferred presentment services whether that
customer has any outstanding checks payable to other licensees.
D. A
licensee may rely on the customer's representation of whether the customer
has any outstanding checks for deferred presentment held by other licensees.
E. UNTIL A DATABASE IS CERTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 6-1264, A LICENSEE MAY RELY UPON THE CUSTOMER'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATION THAT THE CUSTOMER DOES NOT HAVE AN OUTSTANDING, INCOMPLETE REPAYMENT PLAN AS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION O OF THIS SECTION.
E.
F. The maker of a check has the right to redeem the check from
the licensee before the agreed on date of presentment or deposit if the
maker pays the licensee the amount of the check.
F. G.
A licensee shall not directly or indirectly charge any fee or other consideration
for accepting a check for deferred presentment or deposit that is more
than fifteen per cent of the
face amount of the check
for any initial transaction or any extension
PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT BORROWED BY THE CUSTOMER.
G. H.
A licensee may impose the fee prescribed in subsection F G
of this section only once for each written agreement. The fee is earned
on execution of the written agreement and is not subject to any reimbursement
even if the maker redeems the check pursuant to subsection E F
of this section.
H. I. The
fee charged by the licensee is not interest for purposes of any other law
or rule of this state.
I. J.
Except
as otherwise provided in this subsection,
A person may NOT,
FOR A FEE, extend the presentment or deposit of a check.
not
more than three consecutive times. For each extension the customer and
the licensee shall terminate the previous agreement and sign a separate
agreement.
During an incomplete transaction the customer may not
receive any additional monies from the licensee.
The
licensee may charge a fee as prescribed in subsection F of this section
for each extension. A person who is a member of the military service
of the United States or the member's spouse may not extend the presentment
or deposit of a check.
If a customer has completed
a deferred presentment transaction with the licensee, the customer may
enter into a new agreement for deferred presentment services with the
licensee ON THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY FOLLOWING
THE COMPLETION OF AN EXISTING TRANSACTION, INCLUDING THE COMPLETION OF
A REPAYMENT AGREEMENT AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 6-1260.O. A transaction
is completed when the customer's check is presented for payment, deposited
or redeemed by the customer for cash.
J. K. If
a check is returned to the licensee from a payer financial institution
due to insufficient funds, a closed account or a stop payment order, the
licensee may use all available civil remedies to collect on the check including
the imposition of the dishonored check service fee prescribed in section
44-6852. THE LICENSEE SHALL NOT CHARGE A DISHONORED CHECK SERVICE FEE MORE THAN TWICE FOR A CHECK RETURNED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT FUNDS. THE LICENSEE SHALL NOT CHARGE A DISHONORED CHECK SERVICE FEE MORE THAN ONCE FOR A CHECK RETURNED DUE TO A CLOSED ACCOUNT OR A STOP PAYMENT ORDER. A LICENSEE MAY NOT CHARGE ANY ADDITIONAL FEES FOR THE DEFERRED PRESENTMENT TRANSACTION IF A CHECK IS RETURNED TO THE LICENSEE FROM A PAYER FINANCIAL INSTITUTION DUE TO INSUFFICIENT FUNDS, A CLOSED ACCOUNT OR A STOP PAYMENT ORDER, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SUBSECTION. An individual who issues
a personal check to a licensee under a deferred presentment agreement is
not subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to title 13, chapter 18.
K L.
Before engaging in a deferred presentment transaction, a licensee shall
provide to a customer who is a member of the military service of the United
States or the member's spouse a written statement that clearly and conspicuously
states the prohibited practices and requirements prescribed in subsection L M of
this section.
L. M.
If lending to a member of the military service of the United States or
the spouse of a member of the military service of the United States, a
licensee:
1. Shall not garnish
any military wages or salary.
2. Shall not conduct
any collection activity against a customer who is a member of the military
service of the United States or the spouse of the member during the member's
deployment to a combat or combat support posting or during active duty
service by a member of the national guard or any military reserve unit
of any branch of the armed forces of the United States.
3. Shall contact the
employer of a member of the military service of the United States about
a deferred presentment debt of the member or the member's spouse. The contact
allowed by this paragraph shall only be a notice for informational purposes
and shall not be an attempt to collect on a loan made to the member or
the member's spouse. A licensee shall not attempt to collect on a loan
made to a member of the military service of the United States or the member's
spouse through the member's chain of command.
4. Shall not conduct
a deferred presentment transaction with a member of the military service
of the United States or the member's spouse in any location that the member's
commanding officer prohibits the member or the member's spouse from transacting
deferred presentment business.
5. Is bound by the
terms of any repayment agreement that the licensee negotiates with respect
to the customer through military counselors or third party credit counselors.
N. A LICENSEE WHO ENTERS INTO A DEFERRED PRESENTMENT TRANSACTION WITH A "COVERED BORROWER" AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN SECTION 670 OF THE JOHN WARNER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 (P.L. 109-364; 120 STAT. 2083; 10 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 987), AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER, AND WHO VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF SUCH ACT OR REGULATION IN EFFECT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT TO THIS SECTION IS IN VIOLATION OF THIS TITLE.
O. IF A CUSTOMER REQUESTS A REPAYMENT PLAN AND SIGNS AN AMENDMENT TO THE PARTIES' WRITTEN AGREEMENT BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE DATE ON WHICH A DEFERRED PRESENTMENT TRANSACTION IS DUE, THE LICENSEE SHALL ENTER INTO A REPAYMENT PLAN WITH THE CUSTOMER AS FOLLOWS:
1. THE REPAYMENT PLAN SHALL DIVIDE THE CUSTOMER'S OUTSTANDING BALANCE INTO FOUR SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL PAYMENTS THAT COINCIDE WITH THE CUSTOMER'S EXPECTED PAY DAYS OR IF THE CUSTOMER IS UNEMPLOYED AT THE TIME, FOUR MONTHLY PAYMENTS. NO ADDITIONAL FEES OR INTEREST MAY BE ASSESSED ON THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE PAID PURSUANT TO THE REPAYMENT PLAN IF THE CUSTOMER FULFILLS THE TERMS OF THE REPAYMENT PLAN. A REPAYMENT PLAN IS NOT AN AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRED PRESENTMENT SERVICES AND IS NOT A LOAN. EXCEPT FOR THE REVISED PAYMENT SCHEDULE THE TERMS OF THE DEFERRED PRESENTMENT AGREEMENT REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. PROVIDED THAT THE CUSTOMER HAS COMPLIED WITH THE TERMS OF THE REPAYMENT PLAN, THEN DURING THE TERM OF THE REPAYMENT PLAN THE LICENSEE MAY NOT SEEK TO COLLECT ANY AMOUNT DUE EXCEPT PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE REPAYMENT PLAN. IF THE CUSTOMER MAKES EACH OF THE PAYMENTS REQUIRED UNDER THE REPAYMENT PLAN, THE OUTSTANDING DEFERRED PRESENTMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT SHALL BE COMPLETED. IF THE CUSTOMER FAILS TO ADHERE TO THE ORIGINAL REPAYMENT PLAN, THE LICENSEE MAY ENGAGE IN ANY LAWFUL COLLECTION ACTIVITY, BUT SHALL USE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO NEGOTIATE A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE ALTERNATIVE REPAYMENT PLAN BEFORE INITIATING ANY LEGAL ACTION.
2. NO LICENSEE MAY ALLOW A CUSTOMER TO ENTER INTO THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR IN THIS SUBSECTION MORE THAN ONCE PER THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE DAY PERIOD COMMENCING ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE AGREEMENT.
3. THE LICENSEE SHALL SUBMIT TO A CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING SERVICE THE DATA REQUIRED BY SECTION 6-1264 AT THE TIME IT ENTERS INTO A REPAYMENT PLAN.
4. AT THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE REPAYMENT PLAN, THE LICENSEE SHALL REPORT TO THE CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING SERVICE THAT THE CUSTOMER'S REPAYMENT PLAN IS TERMINATED.
Sec. 7. Section 6-1262,
Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
6-1262.
Violation;
classification; individual liability
A. A person that provides
deferred presentment services without a license is guilty of a class 1
misdemeanor.
B. A licensee that
violates this chapter or the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter is
subject to revocation of the licensee's license and is guilty of a class
1 misdemeanor.
C. An officer or agent
of a corporation or association who participates in a violation of this
chapter is subject to the penalties prescribed in this section.
D. Except as the result
of an accidental or bona fide error, if the licensee charges, contracts
for or receives any amount in excess of the fees expressly permitted by
this chapter, the deferred presentment is voidable and the licensee has
no right to collect or receive any fees in connection with the deferred
presentment transaction. Any deferred presentment transaction, that
is made by a person who is required to be licensed pursuant to this chapter
but who is not licensed is void, and the person has no right to MAINTAIN A COURT ACTION OR OTHERWISE collect, receive or retain any principal
or other fees in connection with that deferred presentment transaction. ANY AMOUNT RECEIVED BY A CUSTOMER FROM A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED BUT WHO IS NOT, SHALL BE DEEMED A GIFT TO THE CUSTOMER.
Sec. 8. Repeal
6-1263.
Program
termination
Section 6-1263., Arizona
Revised Statutes is hereby repealed.
Sec. 9. Title 6, chapter
12.1, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section
6-1264, to read:
6-1264.
Commercially
reasonable methods for verification; one incomplete repayment plan; definition
A. BEFORE ENTERING INTO A DEFERRED PRESENTMENT AGREEMENT WITH A CONSUMER, A LICENSEE MUST USE A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TO VERIFY THAT THE CUSTOMER HAS NO OUTSTANDING INCOMPLETE REPAYMENT PLANS AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 6-1260.O WITH THE LICENSEE OR ANY OTHER LICENSEE.
B. NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 15, 2009, THE SUPERINTENDENT SHALL CERTIFY THAT ONE OR MORE CONSUMER REPORTING SERVICE DATABASES ARE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE METHODS OF VERIFICATION. THE LIST OF PROVIDERS THAT THE DIRECTOR HAS CERTIFIED AS PROVIDING COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE METHODS OF VERIFICATION SHALL BE POSTED ON THE DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE AND SHALL BE MAILED TO EACH LICENSEE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL AT THE ADDRESS OF RECORD AS SHOWN ON THE DEPARTMENT'S LICENSING FILES.
C. EACH LICENSEE WHO PROVIDES DEFERRED PRESENTMENT SERVICES SHALL COMPLY WITH SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 31, 2009.
D. A CONSUMER SEEKING DEFERRED PRESENTMENT SERVICES MAY MAKE A DIRECT INQUIRY TO THE CONSUMER REPORTING SERVICE TO REQUEST A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE BASIS FOR A CONSUMER REPORTING SERVICE'S DETERMINATION THAT THE CONSUMER IS INELIGIBLE FOR A DEFERRED PRESENTMENT, AND THE CONSUMER REPORTING SERVICE SHALL PROVIDE A REASONABLE RESPONSE TO THE CONSUMER.
E. IN CERTIFYING A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE METHOD OF VERIFICATION, THE SUPERINTENDENT SHALL ENSURE THE CERTIFIED DATABASE:
1. PROVIDES REAL TIME ACCESS THROUGH AN INTERNET CONNECTION OR, IF REAL TIME ACCESS THROUGH AN INTERNET CONNECTION BECOMES UNAVAILABLE DUE TO TECHNICAL PROBLEMS INCURRED BY THE CONSUMER REPORTING SERVICE, THROUGH ALTERNATIVE REAL TIME VERIFICATION MECHANISMS, INCLUDING REAL TIME VERIFICATION BY TELEPHONE;
2. CONTAINS A REAL TIME REGULATOR INTERFACE THAT ALLOWS THE DEPRTMENT TO ACCESS A CONSUMER REPORTING SERVICE DATABASE FOR REQUIRED MONITORING AND REPORTING FUNCTION; THIS INCLUDES THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE CONSUMER ELIGIBILITY AND REPORTS FOR LICENSEE EXAMINATIONS, REGULATORY REPORTING AND PROGRAM MONITORING;
3. PROVIDES LICENSEES WITH A STATEMENT THAT A CONSUMER IS ELIGIBLE OR INELIGIBLE FOR DEFERRED PRESENTMENT SERVICES AND A DESCRIPTION OF THE REASON FOR THE DETERMINATION.
4. PROVIDES ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THAT CONSUMER INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE CONSUMER REPORTING DATABASE IS KEPT CONFIDENTIAL;
5. DOES NOT ALLOW THE LICENSEE TO ENTER INTO A DEFERRED PRESENTMENT AGREEMENT THAT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER;
6. ENSURES THAT INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE CERTIFIED DATABASE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE RELEASED, OR OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE, TO THE PUBLIC;
7. DEMONSTRATES A WORKING SYSTEM TO THE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATION; AND
8. REQUIRES THAT A PROVIDER BE A REGISTERED CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY AND BE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS APPLIED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT.
F. A LICENSEE SHALL UPDATE THE CERTIFIED DATABASE WHEN:
1. A CONSUMER ELECTS TO ENTER INTO A REPAYMENT PLAN;
2. A CONSUMER'S REPAYMENT PLAN IS PAID IN FULL; OR
4. A LICENSEE DETERMINES A REPAYMENT PLAN IS IN DEFAULT.
G. A LICENSEE MAY RELY ON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE CERTIFIED DATABASE AS ACCURATE AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY PENALTY OR LIABILITY AS A RESULT OF RELYING ON INACCURATE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE DATABASE.
H. IN DETERMINING WHETHER A CREDIT REPORTING SERVICE SHOULD BE CERTIFIED AS A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE METHOD OF VERIFICATION, THE SUPERINTENDENT WILL CONSIDER WHETHER SUCH CREDIT REPORTING SERVICE IS ADEQUATELY CAPITALIZED, DEMONSTRATES THE RESOURCES AND ABILITY TO PERFORM THE SERVICES REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, AND HAS APPROPRIATE SURETY TO ENSURE PERFORMANCE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION AND TO REASONABLY PROTECT CLAIMANTS IN THE EVENT THAT ACTIONS OR INACTIONS ON THE PART OF THE CREDIT REPORTING SERVICE RESULTS IN DAMAGES TO LICENSEES OR CONSUMERS.
Sec. 10. Section 12-671,
Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
12-671.
Drawing
check or draft on no account or insufficient account with intent to defraud;
civil action; definition of credit; prima facie evidence
A. A person who, for
himself or for another, with intent to defraud, makes, draws, utters or
delivers to another person or persons a check or draft on a bank or depositary
for payment of money, knowing at the time of such making, drawing, uttering
or delivery, that he or his principal does not have an account or does
not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, such bank or depositary to
meet the check or draft in full upon presentation, shall be liable to the
holder of such check or draft for twice the amount of such check or draft
or fifty dollars, whichever is greater, together with costs and reasonable attorney's ATTORNEY fees
as allowed by the court on the basis of time and effort expended by such
attorney on behalf of plaintiff, EXCEPT THAT LIABILITY FOR A CHECK OR DRAFT PRESENTED ACCORDING TO TITLE 6, CHAPTER 12.1 IS LIMITED TO ONLY THE FACE VALUE OF THE CHECK OR DRAFT TOGETHER WITH COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND ANY APPLICABLE DISHONORED CHECK SERVICE FEE PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 44-6852.
B. The word "credit" as
used in this section shall be construed to be an express agreement with
the bank or depositary for payment of the check or draft.
C. Proof that, at the
time of presentment, the maker, issuer or drawer did not have sufficient
funds with the bank or depositary, and that he failed within twelve days
after receiving notice of nonpayment or dishonor to pay the check or draft
is prima facie evidence of intent to defraud.
D. Where a check, draft
or order is protested, on the ground of insufficiency of funds or credit,
the notice of formal protest thereof shall be admissible as proof of presentation,
nonpayment and protest and shall be prima facie evidence of the insufficiency
of funds or credit with the bank or depositary, or person, or firm or corporation.
E. "Notice",
as used in this section, means notice given to the person entitled thereto,
either in person, or in writing. Such notice in writing shall be given
by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the person at his address
as it appears on such check or draft.
F. Nothing in this
section shall be applicable to any criminal case or affect eligibility
or terms of probation.
Sec. 11. Section 44-6852,
Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
44-6852.
Dishonored
checks; service fee
Notwithstanding any
other law EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 6-1260, the
holder, payee or assignee of the holder or payee of a dishonored check,
draft, order or note may charge and collect from the maker or drawer a
service fee of not more than twenty-five dollars plus any actual charges
assessed by the financial institution of the holder, payee or assignee
of the holder or payee as a result of the dishonored instrument.
Sec. 12.
Conflicting
Initiatives
This initiative constitutes
a comprehensive regulatory program for deferred presentment lending. The
people intend that if this measure receives more votes than any other initiative
concerning deferred presentments then this measure shall prevail and take
effect in its entirety and that no provision of any other measure concerning
deferred presentments shall take effect in any respect.
Sec. 13. Severability
If any provision of
this initiative measure is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not
affect other provisions of this initiative measure which can be given effect
without the invalid provision. To this end, the provisions of this initiative
measure are declared to be severable.
Prop
200: The Payday Loan Reform Act
A payday loan is a small, unsecured,
cash advance that is usually repaid on the borrower's next payday. Everyday
in Arizona, thousands of hardworking people use a payday loan to meet unexpected
financial challenges while avoiding expensive bounced-check fees, overdraft
fees, late bill payment penalties, and other less desirable short-term
credit options.
The time
has come to implement reforms in the industry to further protect consumers,
improve the way companies do business in Arizona, and preserve this financial
option for those customers who choose it.
Prop 200
contains a number of important industry reforms:
1. Creates tough new penalties
for unregulated, off-shore internet lenders
2. Requires all AZ payday loan
stores to significantly reduce loan fees
3. Prohibits costly loan extensions
4. Mandates a no-cost repayment
plan for those customers who cannot meet their obligations
5. Preserves this financial
option for those Arizonans who choose it
These reforms and others in
the Proposition will also have the effect of reducing the number of payday
loan stores in AZ.
Please vote YES.
www.ReformAZPaydayLoans.com
|
Manny Tarango,
Treasurer, Arizonans for Financial Reform, Phoenix
|
|
Paid for
by "Arizonans for Financial Reform"
|
Payday
Loan Reform Good For Customers
I live in Tucson and work
for a payday loan company. Everyday I see hard-working people come into
my store with money worries and leave with cash in their hands and relief
on their faces. I see this a lot with single moms who are trying to deal
with covering bills between paychecks.
They
come into our store and we give them the temporary help they need.
I also see some of our customers
having trouble with keeping their financial affairs in order as they
come in to explain that they cannot payback their loan obligation.
Today, these customers spend
extra on fees to extend their loan, or sometimes go to another competing
payday loan store and get a 2nd loan to pay off the 1st loan. It's not
good money management, but it's easy for people to do.
The Payday Loan Reform Act
will stop this.
It prohibits extra-fee loan extensions and makes it more
difficult for customers to have more than one loan at a time.
It also gives my customers
the choice of a repayment plan that costs them nothing additional should
they find themselves unable to pay their loan back when due.
These reforms are in the
best interest of customers and will make payday loans a more consumer
friendly product for those people that find it hard to pay their debts
on time.
This reform
is a good thing for people. I hope voters support it
.
|
Carl Hancox,
Payday Loan Industry Employee, Tucson
|
I Believe
in Economic Freedom, Consumer Choice, and Tough But Fair Regulation
The Payday Loan Reform Act
makes sense to me. The payday lending industry in Arizona serves an important
function as a simple, convenient, and less costly place for people to
borrow money when the short-term need arises.
Reforming the industry even
while keeping this financial option available for those who choose it
is a sensible, reasonable thing to do in Arizona.
When I served as a Member
of the Arizona State Senate I put my faith in people to make their own
decisions about how to live their lives. When considering regulatory
policy, I believed in tough but fair regulation that protected consumers
while still giving free enterprise a positive environment in which to
do business.
The
Payday Loan Reform Act is true to these same ideals.
If you believe like I do
that people know best what personal decisions to make in their own financial
lives then please join me in supporting this Proposition.
If you believe like I do
that the payday loan industry ought to be regulated in a tough but fair
manner then vote YES with me.
If you believe like I do
that consumers deserve choices in the financial marketplace and that
removing those choices is not good policy for Arizona then support the
Payday Loan Reform Act.
Thank you.
|
Stan Barnes,
Former Arizona State Senator, Mesa
|
There's
a Place For Payday Lending in Arizona
I remember what it was like
when I was single and living paycheck-to-paycheck. It's not fun, and
anyone who has been there knows what I'm talking about.
Now I have a great family,
a successful career, a nice home, and even a little money in the bank,
but some of my neighbors and friends do not. They're still in a position
where every now and then they face a cash crunch because something like
the transmission goes out on the car and without it they can't get to
work.
It's good to have options
to get the money you need. Not everyone can call up their rich uncle
and borrow a few bucks, and it's almost impossible to walk into a local
bank branch and borrow $100 for 2 weeks.
I'm asking the voters of
Arizona to think about folks that are making less than $40,000 a year
and trying to pay the rent, make the car payment, cover the grocery bill,
and praying that a financial emergency never comes.
I'm glad the Payday Loan
Reform Act is here to make the industry more consumer friendly while
still being available.
Google "Payday
Loans" and See What You Get
I've watched the Arizona
Legislature fool around with the payday loan issue for a few years while
delivering no results. Too bad. There are changes needed in the industry,
and all certain legislators want to do is run out the clock because they
think they can eliminate the payday lending in Arizona. Anyone who thinks
you can eliminate payday loans in Arizona should simply do a little internet
search. "Payday Loan" gets 11,700,000 hits... and a great many
of these are from potentially unscrupulous companies located outside
of the US.
If payday loans were banned
in Arizona, the demand for short-term, unsecured loans would not magically
vanish but instead would go to other options including the unregulated
internet lenders.
It's far better for Arizona
payday lending customers to have a regulated bricks-and-mortar industry
to use instead of unregulated, off-shore lenders via the internet.
I Want
Fewer Payday Loan Stores in Arizona
I support the Payday Loan
Reform Act because the payday loan industry ought to be well regulated
to protect Arizona customers who choose to use payday loan services.
I also support the Proposition
because it will lead to fewer payday loan stores in Arizona cities and
towns including my hometown of Tucson.
The
Payday
Loan Reform Act
does two important things that will lower the
number of payday loan stores in Arizona.
-
First, it raises the
minimum financial requirements needed to own and operate a payday lending
store in Arizona.
-
Second, the reforms
in the Act will significantly reduce the gross revenue to the industry,
which will certainly cause some stores to go out of business in Arizona.
Reforming the payday loan
industry in Arizona to protect consumers is a good thing.
Please
join me in supporting this Proposition.
|
Jonathan Paton,
Republican State Representative, Tucson
|
People
Need Credit Options in a Bad Economy
These are tough economic
times for many people.
The price of gas, the high
cost of food, and trouble in the housing market are all contributing
to a financial squeeze for Arizonans.
It's critical in times like
these that people have options when they need help. It's also critical
to ensure that consumers are protected.
That's why I'm supporting
the Payday Loan Reform Act.
Not
everyone can walk into a bank and borrow money, and not everyone has
a credit card to use when unexpected bills arrive.
Access
to credit is a key issue in a down economy.
Payday loans are an important,
short-term answer for many people in Arizona and it is essential that
the industry be reformed and allowed to remain in business to serve those
customers who need temporary help.
Please join me in supporting
the Payday Loan Reform Act.
|
Steve
Gallardo, Democratic State Representative, Phoenix
|
Payday
customers are average Arizonans
Opponents claim that the
payday advance industry exploits the downtrodden.
By perpetuating this myth,
they have created a warped idea of the industry's customer base.
Actually, payday advance
customers represent the heart of Arizona's middle class.
They are typical hard working
adults who may not have savings or disposable income to use as a safety
net when unexpected expenses occur.
Here
are the facts:
-
The majority of payday
advance customers earn between $25,000 and $50,000 annually;
-
Sixty-eight percent
are under 45 years old; only 4 percent are over 65, compared to 20
percent of the population;
-
Ninety-four percent
have a high school diploma or better, with 56 percent having some college
or a degree;
-
Forty-two percent own
their own homes;
-
The majority are married
and 64 percent have children in the household; and,
-
One hundred percent
have steady incomes and active checking accounts, both of which are
required to receive a payday advance. *
Vote YES
on Prop 200
Payday
lending opponents wrongly claim "cycle of debt"
Although the phrase "cycle
of debt" is a favorite among opponents, it's not based on the truth.
Arizona currently limits
rollovers to three times.
Prop 200 would make
any rollover illegal.
Researchers and state regulators
consistently report that 70-80% of customers use payday advances between
once a year and about once a month.
People who bounce checks
and use overdraft protection often do so at a higher frequency.
The fact is that a payday
advance is more economical than other options.
I
use payday loans and I support Prop 200
As a customer who occasionally
uses payday loan stores to help pay bills between paychecks, I'm voting
`yes' on this ballot measure.
I have a stable job, but
sometimes I've found that unexpected bills pop up (such as car repairs)
and I'm still a few days away from payday. It's not like I can go without
my car, so I occasionally need to use the short-term credit option.
Unfortunately, I can't just
walk into Bank of America or Wells Fargo and get a $300 short-term loan
from them. They don't offer it. Apparently banks used to offer short-term
loans, but stopped doing so years ago.
My only other option is to
ask my friends or family for cash. But frankly I'm a little embarrassed
to do that and I certainly don't need my father-in-law to know that things
are tight.
Thankfully, payday lending
stores exist so I can use this option. While I wish the service were
free, I recognize that everything has a cost to it.
My hope is that if Prop 200
passes, it will improve this option for me when I use it.
Thanks for voting yes.
Reform
Payday Loans - Preserve Thousands of Jobs
I work in the payday loan
industry in Arizona and because I am involved in the industry I have
been paying close attention to the debate that surrounds the issue.
Something that doesn't get
a lot of attention is the number of jobs that would be lost by industry
employees in Arizona should opponents get their way and ban payday lending
in our State.
There are approximately 2,500
people that work in the payday loan industry in Arizona. The industry
pays good wages, and employees also get good benefits including health
insurance.
If payday loans were made
illegal in Arizona all of these people, including myself, would be out
of a job and facing the tough task of finding new employment in a down
economy.
The `Payday Loan Reform Act'
makes changes in our industry that benefit our customers in Arizona while
making it possible to continue to do business with the people we serve.
Please
join me in voting YES.
|
Matt McKnight,
Queen Creek
|
Voting
YES on Prop 200 will lower fees on payday loans
One of the key reforms in
Prop 200 is a mandate that requires all AZ payday loan stores to significantly
reduce fees.
Specifically, the fee on
a two-week loan in AZ would be capped at $15 per $100 borrowed.
This
reform will significantly benefit consumers.
Studies have shown that this
cap is the bare minimum amount that lenders
can charge and still earn a reasonable profit after paying salaries,
government taxes, etc.
A fee any lower than that
and stores will likely go out of business - Hurting consumers in the
long run.
A YES
vote on Prop 200 will lower the fee that consumers pay on short-term
loans in AZ.
Vote YES on Prop 200 to implement
this important reform.
A
YES vote on 200 will preserve consumer choice
As an Arizonan, I highly
value our state's independence and strong sense of community.
That's why
I
favor public polices that protect and strengthen consumer choice.
And,
it's why I oppose public policies that take our rights and choices
as consumers away.
Many Arizonans freely choose
to obtain short-term (two week) loans provided by payday loan stores.
They do so for a variety of reasons.
Some choose this type of short-term
credit to pay unexpected bills. Others find it a simple and convenient
way to get needed cash.
Whatever their reasons for
obtaining loans, I believe consumers are more qualified than the government
to make personal financial decisions. When the government starts making
financial decisions for us, then we're all in trouble.
I'm voting for Prop. 200
because it maintains an important financial option for consumers. And
the reforms within this proposal will strengthen this option.
In
a time of tight credit and lending troubles, we should do everything
possible to preserve financial options for consumers.
George
McGovern supports preserving options for consumers
George McGovern is a former
senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.
In March of 2008, he wrote a power opinion piece called `Freedom Means
Responsibility' in the Wall Street Journal.
Here
are some excerpts from Mr. McGovern's column:
-
"Anguished at the
fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the
service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will
provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended
consequences should be able to guess what happens next."
-
"Researchers from
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid
the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers
into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy.
Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of
debt but fewer ways to manage it."
-
"Why do we think
we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't
take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow
state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery
money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't
operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle
in life."
I urge you to consider Mr.
McGovern's words as you weigh the positive aspects of Prop 200. Please
vote YES.
Federal
Reserve Staff Report Shows Consumers Hurt When Payday Loans Eliminated
A November 2007 staff report
done for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed that consumers suffer
financially when payday lending is banned in a state.
The study looked at the State
of Georgia where payday lending was banned in 2004.
It said,
"Compared with
households in all other states, households in Georgia bounced more checks,
complained more to the Federal Trade Commission about lenders and debt
collectors, and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection at a higher
rate".
The Federal Reserve report
goes on to say,
"This negative correlation--reduced payday credit
supply, increased credit problems--contradicts the debt trap critique
of payday lending, but is consistent with the hypothesis that payday
credit is preferable to substitutes such as the bounced-check "protection" sold
by credit unions and banks or loans from pawnshops".
This incisive report from
one of our nation's most revered financial institutions clearly makes
the important yet simple case that
consumers are
hurt when credit options are eliminated in the financial marketplace.
Those who oppose the `Payday
Loan Reform Act `seek to eliminate the payday loan industry in Arizona
entirely... forcing borrowers to more costly options.
As the Federal Reserve report
demonstrates,
eliminating payday lending in Arizona
would be bad public policy
.
Much better to reform the industry
and preserve the option for those who would choose to use it.
Prop
200 Will Eliminate Loan Extensions
One of the key reforms in
Prop 200 is a prohibition on loan extensions.
Under current law, consumers
of payday loans can extend the same two-week loan up to three times in
Arizona. As a result, consumers accumulate additional fees and the loan
ends up costing more than the consumer originally planned.
Prop 200 would change that
because it
creates a new state law that prohibits
a consumer from extending the same loan multiple times
.
It also
prohibits
a consumer from taking out more than one loan at a time in the state
.
As a result of voting
YES
on 200
, payday lending stores would be forced to charge fewer
fees than they currently charge.
And, as a result of voting
YES
on 200
, consumers would be forced to deal with their current
debt obligations before taking on additional debt.
In the end, the payday loan
stores will be held to a higher level of accountability and consumers
will be held to a higher level of financial responsibility .
Reforming
the payday lending industry in AZ is good public policy.
Prop
200 will reign in unregulated off-shore internet lenders
Do an internet search for "payday
lending" and you'll find hundreds of internet lenders, often in
foreign countries, willing to do business.
These lenders are frequently
not bound by Arizona laws and regulations.
They operate largely on the
honor system. They'll gladly take your fee and if you're lucky, you may
see the loan.
Under Prop 200, off-shore
internet payday lenders would be subject to the same laws and regulations
as brick and mortar AZ stores.
This
is real consumer protection that Arizona needs now.
Vote YES on Prop 200
Employee
Urges YES on 200
I work for a payday lending
store in AZ and I'm proud of the service we provide our customers.
The industry employees over
2,500 residents of the great state of AZ!
I know firsthand the valuable
option we provide for people who need short-term loans to cover expenses.
Here
are some of the reasons why my customers use our store:
To place a security
deposit on a rental home or apartment
To avoid having
their utilities cut off
To purchase food
or prescription drugs for the family
To avoid missing
a mortgage payment
To avoid bouncing
a check
A YES vote on Prop 200 will
improve the payday lending industry and ensure that this valuable service
remains available to AZ consumers.
Vote
YES on 200.
Prop
200 forces the industry to set up free repayment plans
Under current law, consumers
who have difficulty paying off an outstanding short-term loan, don't
have many options. Some may borrow money from friends or relatives -
Others may take out a second loan to pay off the first.
Prop 200 would change that
by
mandating the industry to create a no-cost
repayment plan for customers that want to take advantage of such an option
.
Here's how it would work:
-
Customer tells payday
loan store he/she is having difficulty in paying off loan
-
Payday store and customer
enter into a repayment agreement
-
Customer is allowed
up to 4 months to repay the loan
-
Payday store is
prohibited
from charging on any additional fees
on the loan
This reform is very beneficial
because it will help customers maintain their positive credit ratings
and avoid having credit agencies chasing them down for payment. And it
will prevent payday loan stores from tacking on additional fees.
This
is the kind of payday loan REFORM that I can vote for.
Arizonans
Can Make Their Own Financial Decisions
The Payday Loan Reform Act
makes pro-consumer changes to payday lending in Arizona while allowing
the industry to continue to do business in our state. I support this.
I've heard that some people
want to eliminate payday loans in Arizona. But why would someone want
to do this?
When
it comes to money, credit, and borrowing decisions... people in Arizona
need more options, not less.
This Proposition will make
sure payday lenders are tightly regulated, more consumer friendly, and
remain available to serve those people who need a small, simple to understand,
short-term loan.
I'm voting YES.
I'm
voting YES on 200 because it's the right thing to do
Like a lot of people I have
never used a payday loan service. In my worst financial scenario I have
turned to family. I couldn't understand how anyone could use one of "those" places.
I've changed my mind about
those places. I found out that their customers must have a checking account,
identification and a stable income. It seems to me if consumers had a
better option they would use it. Being an ex-banker I know you can't
go to your bank to borrow a small amount of cash for emergencies and
$35 for a bounced check when your account is only $3 overdrawn does not
make good financial sense.
I'm voting for Prop 200 because
I don't think government should put a community needed service out of
business. This reform is good because it eliminates any possibility of
out of control rollover. America is about choice and opportunity.
Vote yes to give working
people a choice.
Payday
loans less expensive than bank fees and charges
There's a very strong reason
that payday lending is so popular in Arizona:
The
alternatives are more expensive!
A recent study done by an
economist from North Carolina ("Hidden Consumer Loans" July
2007) found that
bouncing a check with your bank
costs twenty (20) times what a payday loan would cost.
It's strange how little outrage
there is about bank ATM fees, bounce protection charges, late fees, overdraft
protection charges, etc. etc. etc. But, when you start adding all these
things up, they can really put a dent in your wallet.
The
profit margins of the top banks are 26.52% compared to 6.6% for payday
companies.
The banks profit margins are 301% greater, or four
times higher, than the five public payday advance companies.
Plus, when you add in the
bad credit ratings that are associated with bounced checks and other
negative banking options, the true cost of banks is significantly higher
than a two-week short term loan.
Here's
an interesting comparison:
-
Proposed Payday Advance
Fee in Arizona: $15
-
Offshore
internet payday advance fee: $25
-
Overdraft
Protection Charge
(Source:
bankrate.com)
: $27
-
Credit
card late fee
(Source: Government Accountability
Office)
: $37
-
Bounced
check (fee to bank and vendor)
(Source:
bankrate.com
): $54
Prop 200 will implement necessary
reforms while preserving this important option for consumers.
Don't
be tricked by opponents claim of 400% interest
Payday loans are two-week
loans - not annual loans!
Opponents frequently claim "400%
annual percentage rates" to misrepresent the truth and to help push
their political agenda.
But, the typical fee charged
by payday lenders is $15 per $100 borrowed, or a simple 15% for a two-week
duration.
The only way to reach the
triple digit APRs quoted by critics is to roll the two-week loan over
26 times or a full year!
This is unrealistic considering
that Arizona makes it illegal to roll a loan over more than 3 times.
Prop 200 would make it illegal to roll any loan over.
Even if, hypothetically,
the loan was rolled over for the entire year, the APR of payday loans
pales in comparison to the alternatives.
If
you really want to play the APR game, let's see how a $100 payday loan
compares?
$100 payday advance with
a $15 fee = 391% APR
$100 bounced check with $54 NSF/merchant fees = 1,409% APR
$100 credit card balance
with a $37 late fee = 965% APR
$100 utility bill with $46
late/reconnect fees = 1,203% APR
Vote YES on 200
Substantive
Reform to Benefit Arizona Consumers
The Payday Loan Reform Act
brings real reform to the payday loan industry in Arizona. Among the
many meaningful changes that come with this Proposition, the Act would:
-
Mandate Lower Costs
for payday loan customers
-
Prohibit loan extensions
and the added fees that go with them
-
Create a new repayment
plan at no cost to the customer for those who have trouble meeting
their obligations
-
Rein in unregulated
and off shore internet lenders with substantial penalties
-
Increase minimum financial
requirements for payday loan companies, ensuring financial strength
in the industry
-
Inhibit a customer's
ability to have more than one loan at a time outstanding
These reforms
are real.
They are
pro-consumer.
They are
quantifiable.
They are
measurable.
These reforms answer every
unfounded assertion ever made by opponents of the payday loan business
in Arizona (most of whom have never been in a payday loan store and talked
to the hard-working Arizonans that responsibly use this service).
And
just as importantly, the Payday Loan Reform Act preserves this important
financial option for those people in Arizona that make the personal
economic decision to use it.
Reform
is Better Than Elimination
I have followed some of the
debate over payday loans in Arizona. It looks like there are people that
are doing their best to make payday loans illegal. They even tried to
make payday lending a Class 5 felony crime. What kind of zealot thinks
this is a good idea?
I don't get it.
Payday Loans are not for
everyone, but for many people a payday loan is the best and least expensive
option they have. Why would someone want to take this away?
Opponents of payday loans
scream about interest rates, but this Proposition would set a new, lower
fee for a payday loan in Arizona at 15 dollars for every one hundred
dollars borrowed.
If you need one hundred dollars
today and you do not have it, a payday loan at this price is much better
than bouncing a check and getting dinged by the retailer and the bank
for more than 50 dollars... not to mention what they do to your credit
report.
Opponents
to this Proposition have one clear political agenda, and that is to
eliminate payday loans in Arizona. The Payday Loan Reform Act is a
better idea.
Prop
200 good for consumers, Prop 200 good for Arizona
Arizonans use payday lending
services everyday to meet unforeseen expenses and financial emergencies.
The payday lending industry
is set to be eliminated and the Arizona Legislature refuses to enact
reforms to benefit borrowers while preserving this important financial
option.
This measure will bring dramatic
pro-consumer reform to payday lending and preserve consumer choice.
It
includes:
A substantial
rate cut,
Eliminates
rolling-over principal to extend a loan,
Creates
a repayment plan at no cost to customers that can't meet their obligations,
And inhibits
a borrower's ability to obtain more than one loan at a time.
Please join me in approving
these important reforms to the payday lending industry and vote YES on
200 on Nov. 4.
I
used to not support the use of payday loans stores, but not anymore
At one point in my life,
I thought of payday loan stores as predatory, unnecessary and an eyesore.
Then one day, I educated
myself on the issue. I have met many people who use payday loans for
a variety of legitimate reasons whether for medical expenses, rent or
mortgage increases, groceries or other short-term needs. They simply
did not have any other financial option and have found that this option
works best for them.
These emotionally moving
stories made me realize that I should not be so quick to judge payday
loan stores in AZ. They provide a very important financial service. Payday
loans are just another financial tool. They may be less conventional
than many people are used to, but that does not mean that they are not
a creditable lending option.
Prop 200 keeps this financial
option available and enacts important pro-consumer reforms. Please join
me in voting `yes' on Prop 200.
Payday
Loans Help People Who Need It
I am a single Mom.
Like many people in our state
I am doing my best every day to take care of my family, pay my bills,
and meet my responsibilities.
There are times when the
money will just not stretch far enough to cover the month. When that
happens, I'm glad there is a place I can go to get a simple loan to get
me through to the next payday.
Payday loan stores are convenient,
the people that work there are friendly, and they treat me with respect.
Someday I want to be in a
place in my life where I will not need to borrow money to make it to
the next payday. But for where I am in my life right now, I'm happy there
is such a thing as a payday loan in Arizona.
I'll be voting for this Proposition
that reforms payday loans.
Politicians
love to hate the Payday loan industry
That's because
most
politicians have never bounced a check
when they are buying diapers
at Wal-Mart. It's easy to get all parochial when you have overdraft
protection, direct deposit, American Express and a nice pension. So
when a politician sees a line outside a payday loan store, he figures
that a $15 fee is too much to pay for a $100 cash advance and he decides
that he should
take that option away from those
borrowers, you know..."for their own good."
Politicians in other states
for example recently capped the interest rates on loans to military personnel.
That sounds like a great idea, but now those
military
families can't obtain loans
. So when they find themselves short
of cash, they have to risk bouncing checks or
going
without needed items
. It's a lot more expensive to bounce a check
than it is to borrow from a payday lender.
Maybe legislators should
force Wal-Mart not to charge for bounced checks, or force banks to offer
micro loans, or start counting bank fees as interest...after all; paying
a dollar to withdraw $20 from an ATM is a much higher interest rate than
a payday loan.
Or maybe politicians should
stop pretending to be Alan Greenspan and just
let
people make the choices that they believe are best for their families
...even
if they are Hispanic or in the Military.
The `Payday Loan Reform' act
regulates the payday loan industry while preserving the payday loan option
for those who need it. Tell the politicians that they need to start treating
people like grown ups.
Vote YES on the Payday
Loan Reform Act.
|
Greg Patterson,
Scottsdale
|
REAL
Reform of the Payday Loan Industry
In this important campaign
to reform the payday loan industry, you will hear lots of noise from
opponents. These activists will try to fool you into believing that consumers
don't need payday loans to balance their life's financial necessities.
Here's a myth you will hear: "This
is false reform"
Fact:
Prop 200 imposes stringent and costly mandates on the payday loan industry.
Here's a myth you will hear: "Payday
lenders charge 400% interest"
Fact:
The typical fee charged by lenders is $15 per $100 borrowed, or a simple
15% for a two-week duration.
Here's a myth you will hear: "NO
means YES"
Fact:
Opponents want to confuse you into believing that a `no' vote means
reforming the industry. But only a `yes' vote will implement reforms.
Here's a myth you will hear: "Arizonans
are better off without payday loans."
Fact:
States that eliminated short term loans saw increases in bankruptcies,
bounced checks and lender complaints.
Vote YES
on Prop 200
Center
for Responsible Lending
(Prop 200 opponent) Not Honest
Consumers across the nation
benefit from short term loans. Without them, many are left with only
higher cost alternatives or with no access at all to the financing that
they need. The campaign to generate public panic over these issues owes
much to a sophisticated
public relations campaign
carried out by the increasingly high-profile Center for Responsible Lending
(CRL).
As the most visible face
of the half-billion dollar team of "Self-Help" non-profit organizations,
CRL attacks competing loan products. Under the guise of advocating in
the interests of its low-income customers, Self-Help makes loans at highly
profitable rates and uncharitably takes those low-income customers to
court over trivial monetary sums. Worse,
CRL's
advocacy has worked to the disadvantage of low-income borrowers.
America's working poor and
low-income individuals often benefit from well-intentioned advocates.
But
when those who claim to speak on behalf of
the vulnerable use their position to benefit themselves, it is an act
of betrayal.
The public record demonstrates clearly that the CRL
and its Self-Help network fit this profile.
CRL's
research is agenda-driven.
Its advocacy has cost consumers more
than it has "saved" them, according to Federal Reserve research.
It relies on race-based claims to generate media interest. And it takes
money from self-interested Wall Street billionaires who profit from
the mortgage crisis so astutely hyped by CRL.
Federal records show Self-Help's
credit union allows its borrowers a much higher average loan rate compared
to similar organizations, a critique at odds with CRL's attacks on lenders
who extend too much money to those who may have trouble repaying their
loan. Finally, Self-Help loses its charitable image when it takes legal
action against its low-income customers.
There is a name for such
groups: predatory charity. Vote YES on Prop 200 .
|
James Terry,
Chief Public Advocate, Consumer's Rights League, Washington, DC
|
Jason Roe,
Treasurer Consumer's Rights League, Washington, DC
|
|
Paid
for by "Consumers Rights League"
|
AARP Arizona Urges a "No" Vote:
Payday Lenders' Reform Prop 200
AARP in Arizona and nationally
has been working to stop predatory lending practices that victimize consumers.
Payday loan operations in Arizona fall into this category, by charging
borrowers excessive interest rates, as high as 458%, thrusting them into
situations where they cannot pay off the initial debt and become embroiled
in a never ending cycle of debt. Seniors on fixed incomes, many of whom
are AARP members, are particularly vulnerable to the payday loan debt trap.
In addition, the state itself
suffers from lost income amounting to $139 million stripped from trapped
borrowers in interest and fees, money that leaves Arizona due to out-of-state
payday lending operations.
Arizonans have to pay interest
rates on payday loans that far exceed the usury rate of 36% for all other
loans in the state. This initiative would make 391% interest rates a permanent
reality here. Other states have been successful in protecting their citizens
by forbidding payday lending at triple-digit interest rates, and Arizona
must follow suit.
Payday lenders have had free
reign in Arizona because of a 10-year exemption from the state's 36% usury
cap that the Legislature granted in 2000. Now they are using this initiative
to try to extend the exemption indefinitely. As for the "reforms" they
profess to support, all of them could be implemented now without the need
for this initiative.
Other Arizona lenders make
a profit at 36% interest and lower, and consumers are protected from exorbitant
rates and fees. There is absolutely no reason for payday lenders to continue
to reap exorbitant gains on the backs of hard-working consumers.
Vote NO on Prop 200
|
Len Kirschner,
M.D., State President, AARP of Arizona, Phoenix
|
David M. Mitchell,
State Director, AARP of Arizona, Phoenix
|
|
Paid for
by "AARP of Arizona"
|
Argument Against PROP 200
Payday Loan Reform Act
Arizona is suffering from
a down turn in its economy, and Arizonans need real solutions to personal
financial hardship. PROP 200 is a step in the wrong direction for Arizona.
This initiative was placed on the ballot by the Payday Loan industry,
the very same special interests who take advantage of Arizonans every
chance they get.
Payday loans charge interest
rates in excess of 390% yet this industry purports to help Arizona's
working families. In reality their loans cause families to struggle even
more when times get bad. For example, the average Arizonan pays back
nearly $1,300 on a $500 payday loan. The Payday Loan "Reform" Act
will not change this.
The real solution cannot
be found by offering Arizona's working families a shovel to dig a deeper
financial hole. Arizonans' needs must be met with living wages and a
future that includes financial security for all. The Arizona Education
Association requests that you vote NO on PROP 200.
|
John Wright,
President, Arizona Education Association, Phoenix
|
Andrew Morrill,
Vice-President, Arizona Education Association, Phoenix
|
|
Paid
for by "Arizona Education Association"
|
Statement in Opposition to
the Payday Loan Reform Act from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul
The Society of St. Vincent
de Paul is opposed to Proposition 200, the Payday Loan Reform Act. The
Society serves the poor and marginalized in our communities who come
to us as a last resort. A financial emergency temporarily solved by payday
loans all too often leads to a perpetual debt trap for inexperienced
borrowers. Proposition 200 does not reform
this lending practice. Instead, it reduces the annualized interest rate
from more than 400% to 391%. It also removes the current 2010 "sunset
date" for payday lending in Arizona which will allow payday lending
to continue in our state for the foreseeable future. Fifteen states and
the District of Columbia have banned triple digit payday loans. Federal
legislation prohibits payday lending to members of the military. Proposition
200 is not in the best interest of Arizonans. The Society of St. Vincent
de Paul urges a "No" vote on Proposition 200.
|
Stephen J.
Jenkins, President, Phoenix Diocesan Council Society of St. Vincent
de Paul, Phoenix
|
Joseph J. Riley,
President-elect, Phoenix Diocesan Council Society of St. Vincent
de Paul, Phoenix
|
|
Paid
for by "Diocesan Council for the Society of St. Vincent de
Paul Diocese of Phoenix"
|
Vote "No" to End
Usury
Usury (Û's û·ry):
The act of lending money at an excessive interest rate. The payday loan
industry and its seedy storefronts offer Arizona a stark contrast: a
continuation of usurious loans by corporate loan sharks who prey on the
poor; or a sunset to this exploitative practice.
The payday loan law legalizes
deferred presentment, also known as check-kiting, which occurs when a
person writes a check for more than the checking account balance. This
unseemly practice is exacerbated by the lack of an interest rate cap.
Unlike many states that permit payday lenders, Arizona has no maximum
interest rate for consumer loans. While other states cap the interest
at 25-36%, Arizona payday lenders charge $87.50 ($17.50 per $100 borrowed)
on a typical $500 loan. When made payable within two weeks, that works
out to an annual interest rate of 455%. If the industry and its cronies
were sincere about reform, they would cap the rate at 36%. Instead, the
sky remains the limit.
Industry shills claim that
consumers should have the choice to engage in any financial transaction
in which they choose to engage. But payday loan customers are usually
in no position to bargain, and are forced to pay outrageous rates simply
to stave off, for a short time, a family emergency or other hard knocks.
Then they find themselves deeper in debt with no way out.
We can best help those in
need by protecting them from greed and exploitation. Arizona voters should
note that a recently-enacted federal law (10 U.S.C. § 987) bans
lenders from charging interest rates greater than 36% to members of the
military. If an interest rate cap is fair for our soldiers and sailors,
it is fair for all Arizonans.
Protect consumers; defeat
greed; and vote "no".
WESTMARC
urges a NO VOTE on Proposition
200!
WESTMARC is a regional coalition
of business, government, and education that advocates for good public
policy. As a partnership between business and government, it is paramount
that we thoroughly consider public policy issues and work collaboratively
toward public policy that is good for our West Valley region and our
state.
WESTMARC has thoroughly reviewed
Proposition 200 and believes that the Payday
Loan Reform Act will not be beneficial to our West Valley region or our
state.
WESTMARC believes that payday
loan services:
- are usurious;
-
can hurt neighborhoods
and property values because of the stigma associated with such operations;
-
can hurt military installations
such as Luke AFB where young, inexperienced, and low paid military
service personnel can be unwary targets for such operations.
WESTMARC also believes:
-
that this Initiative
at the very least severely restricts and most likely eliminates the
Legislature's ability to further and better regulate this industry
in the future;
-
that the Legislature
should be able to regulate this industry, and
-
that since this Initiative
is paid for by the industry itself it is highly protectionist.
For the last two years WESTMARC
has supported legislative efforts to eliminate this industry based on
the premises that their services are usurious and that they are harmful
to military employees and neighborhoods.
WESTMARC believes that this
Initiative is bad for Arizona's economy.
Therefore, we encourage you
to join WESTMARC in opposing the Payday Loan Reform Act and urge you
to vote NO on Proposition 200 !
|
Ray L. Jones,
Chairman, WESTMARC, Peoria
|
Jack W. Lunsford,
President & CEO, WESTMARC, Peoria
|
|
Paid
for by "WESTMARC"
|
Don't be fooled by the name
given to this initiative by the Payday Loan Industry. It will not "reform" the
mess we are in; things will only get worse because the mess will become
permanent. Reasonable people would consider the 391 percent interest
rates they want to continue charging nothing short of legalized loan-sharking.
Payday lenders are notorious
for making huge profits by exploiting the financial hardship of people
with limited resources, especially the poor and young people, and those
living near military bases and in low-income communities. Arizona voters
should do what has been done in a dozen other states and District of
Columbia: Put these predatory lenders out of business unless they follow
our existing laws which allow interest rates up to 36 percent.
The Arizona Advocacy Network
urges defeat of Proposition 200. Its sponsors, the predatory lenders
who charge extremely high interest rates, have already contributed more
than $2.5 million to pay for signatures and support for an advertising
blitz. We don't have those kinds of resources, so we have to depend on
the good sense of voters to recognize what is at stake and vote against
this measure.
The Arizona Advocacy Network
promotes social, economic, racial and environmental justice by advocating
for justice in those areas and by encouraging increased civic participation
and educating voters on ballot measures.
|
Michael J.
Valder, President, Arizona Advocacy Network, Phoenix
|
Eric Ehst,
Treasurer, Arizona Advocacy Network, Phoenix
|
|
Paid
for by "Arizona Advocacy Network"
|
Payday Lenders'
Initiative Would be Bad for Arizona Consumers
As your Attorney General,
it is my responsibility to protect Arizona's fair and open marketplace.
Access to credit at reasonable rates is critical for Arizona consumers,
especially in times of economic hardship.
The Payday Loan Reform Act
would give payday lenders free reign to charge triple-digit interest
rates to Arizona consumers. This initiative is bad for our economy and
bad for consumers. I urge Arizonans to vote no.
Written by the payday loan
industry's lobbyists and lawyers, this act would create an indefinite,
voter-protected mandate for interest rates of 391 percent or more on
small-dollar consumer loans.
Arizona law places a 36 percent
usury cap on consumer loans. For the past eight years, payday lenders
have used an exemption to exploit Arizona consumers. If a majority votes
no on this initiative, that exemption will expire on July 1, 2010. If
it passes, the exemption becomes permanent.
Payday lenders should no
longer be allowed to charge more than 10 times what other lenders can
charge. Arizonans should have access to small-dollar loans at reasonable
rates and be able to hold on to their hard-earned wages. This can only
be accomplished by voting no.
Protecting Arizona families
and consumers is my top priority as Attorney General. The payday loan
industry wants to make excessive interest rates on short term loans permanent
in Arizona. This initiative is bad public policy, and it harms Arizona
consumers. I urge you to join me in voting no.
|
Terry Goddard,
Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix
|
|
Paid
for by "Stop Payday Predators in Opposition to the Payday
Loan Reform Act, I-16-2008"
|
Vote `No'
to 391% interest
I'm Senator Debbie McCune
Davis, Democrat from Phoenix.
And, I'm Representative Marian
McClure, Republican from Tucson.
Together we've served in
the Arizona legislature for a combined total of 30 years and during that
time we haven't always seen eye to eye on the issues. But one issue we've
always agreed on is the need to stop predatory payday loan interest rates
that can exceed 400 percent.
Borrowers in Arizona have
long been protected from predatory rates by the state's 36 percent interest
usury cap, which is the upper limit lenders may charge. That protection
ended in 2000 when payday lenders were granted a temporary exemption
from the consumer loan rules on interest rates. That special exemption
is scheduled to end in 2010.
For the last few years the
payday loan lobbyists have tried to get lawmakers to repeal the sunset
date and grant them the authority to continue charging nearly 400 percent
interest. In each instance, lawmakers refused to give them another free
pass from our state lending laws. The payday lenders will repeal the
sunset date with their initiative which is the true objective of their
initiative.
Now payday lenders are asking
voters to make triple digit loans a permanent law. It's simply not fair
to charge nearly 400% interest. We urge you to join us in protecting
Arizonans paychecks by voting `No.'
|
Debbie McCune
Davis, Arizona State Senator, Legislative District 14, Phoenix
|
Marian McClure,
Arizona State Representative, Legislative District 30, Tucson
|
|
Paid
for by "Stop Payday Predators in Opposition to the Payday
Loan Reform Act, I-16-2008"
|
Vote NO
on the predatory payday loan initiative
Your `No' vote will expand
the national interest rate cap for active military members to all Arizona
families, including our veterans.
We all know the problems
with payday and car title loans. Their neon signs have become a permanent
fixture of our landscape and they trap financially desperate people into
unfair loans with interest rates of 391 percent or more. What is less
known outside of military circles are how these loan sharks prey on our
service members.
But it makes sense when you
think about it. Our young service members and their immediate families
often make too little money and are too far from home to count on traditional
support systems. When they find themselves in financial crisis, they
have nowhere to turn. It's stomach churning to go to a military base
and see how payday loan stores cluster outside the gates, ready to take
advantage of these brave men and women.
That's why Congress passed
and the president signed the Military Lending Act, prohibiting any lenders
from charging a military member on active duty or his or her immediate
family, more than 36 percent interest.
Unfortunately the new law
does not apply to retired or military members when they are not on active
duty status. These families deserve the same kinds of protection from
loan sharks that their active duty brethren receive. In fact, it should
simply be illegal to charge 391 percent interest.
The only way to make triple
digit loans illegal in Arizona - and protect all families - is to vote
`NO' on the predatory payday loan initiative.
Tom Yearout,
United States Coast Guard (Retired)
|
|
Paid
for by "Stop Payday Predators in Opposition to the Payday
Loan Reform Act, I-16-2008"
|
Vote NO
on the predatory lending gimmick
Predatory payday lenders
are spending millions to deceive voters on a ballot measure that has
one goal - protect their profits at the expense of hardworking families
who are desperate for cash and willing to put their paychecks on the
line.
Proposition 200 would write
391 percent annual interest into law, granting one industry a permanent
exemption from the 36 percent annual interest rate cap on consumer loans.
Payday lenders are trying to call this a "cost reduction."
The so-called consumer protections
in Proposition 200 include a repayment plan that is only offered if a
consumer knows to ask for it before the due date. After that they are
barred from negotiating any other repayment plans for an entire year.
The industry will track this information with a consumer information
database.
When you vote 'No' you are
saying that all lenders should follow the state 36 percent interest rate
cap.
Every day we hear from families
who are struggling to make ends meet. Gas and groceries are more expensive
but the paycheck hasn't gotten any larger. The neon signs offer the false
hope of a quick fix.
The truth is, the gap between
your bills and your income only grows when you borrow money at rates
that exceed 400%. As a result, families are spending thousands of dollars
on over-priced financial services.
That's why SEIU Arizona urges
you to vote `No' on Proposition 200, the predatory payday loan initiative.
Your `No' vote will help thousands of hard working families who turn
to 400% loans out of desperation. Vote `No' to restore common sense fair
lending laws for all Arizona families.
|
Scott Washburn,
SEIU AZ State Director, Phoenix
|
|
Paid
for by "Stop Payday Predators in Opposition to the Payday
Loan Reform Act, I-16-2008"
|
I Got
Caught in the Payday Loan Debt Trap. I'm Voting NO.
Payday loans trap people,
plain and simple. I'm an educated, professional woman, and they trapped
me. I had no idea what the actual interest was when I first took out
a payday loan because they purposely made it unclear. They told me it
was "just $345 to borrow $300" and I figured fine.
When I found out I was paying
391% interest - months later, and only after reading the fine print -
I was floored.
Like most people, I wasn't
able to pay back that first loan in the two-week window required. I ended
up paying the interest over and over to renew the loan for 2-week periods,
and soon one loan became many. The payday stores encouraged me to renew
my loans. They made it so easy! Each time, they collected their huge
fee.
Payday loans ultimately led
me to bankruptcy, as they do so many others. At 391% APR interest, I
just got trapped.
I could never pay the principal,
and eventually, I couldn't even pay the interest anymore to renew the
loans. It got to the point where I was paying more than $1,000 a month,
all in interest, just to keep my payday loans from defaulting!
This is the payday loan debt
trap. It was a nightmare, and I'm far from the only victim of it.
I'm asking the voters of
Arizona to help me put an end to this situation. Payday lenders should
have to play by the same rules as other lenders in the state, not get
to write their own. It's only fair.
It should be illegal to charge
391% interest. By voting NO, we can make it illegal again.
Please join me. Vote NO on
the PROP 200.
|
Tamara Sisk,
Mesa
|
|
Paid
for by "Stop Payday Predators in Opposition to the Payday
Loan Reform Act, I-16-2008"
|
Don't
Let Others Be Victimized: Vote NO
As a corrections officer,
I give back to my community every day. I work hard to earn an honest
living and support my family. Payday loans almost ruined my life.
Two years ago, I needed to
pay some old bills so we could buy our first home. My wife told me about
payday loans. I was apprehensive, so we borrowed only $300 and paid back
$349 two weeks later. But that prevented us from being able to pay the
electricity bill. We still had more bills, and the payday loan companies
were sending us mail encouraging another loan, so we tried one of $500.
The payback two weeks later
on that $500 was $582, and we didn't have it. Since we couldn't pay the
full amount, we were told to just pay the interest, $82, to renew the
loan for another two weeks. Of course, two weeks later, we had to renew
it again for another $82. My wife and I started to fall behind on our
bills, and took out another payday loan to try to make ends meet.
The payday loan companies
will keep you in their grasp. I ended up just paying interest, over and
over again, every two weeks. I was stuck.
If a friend had not bailed
me out, I'd still be in the payday loan debt trap, paying $328 a month
in interest to forever extend $1,000 in loans. My original "short-term
fix" turned into two years of long-term debt and nearly cost me
my home, my marriage.
I got caught because of the
391% interest, and that's what the lenders are trying to get away with
now. Help me prevent others from ever having to go through this.
Vote NO on Prop 200.
|
Ivan Polanco,
Tucson
|
|
Paid
for by "Stop Payday Predators in Opposition to the Payday
Loan Reform Act, I-16-2008"
|