Hildebrand/Hickey measure to be challenged? That’s what I’m hearing.

One of my spies dropped me a note this evening, noting that sometime in the next 2 days there is going to be a challenge to the 36% payday lending ballot measure. Watch for this as a strong possibility, as it’s a good source.

14 thoughts on “Hildebrand/Hickey measure to be challenged? That’s what I’m hearing.

  1. Steve Hickey

    As expected, right on schedule. These people have a lot to lose and unlimited bank to fight this at every possible point. They were successful in Missouri in keeping this off the ballot in technical points. We don’t expect them to be here, but we expect them to try. And why not, they know when this goes to the voters they get voted off the island by a good margin.

    Do you suppose South Dakota GOP voters are much different than Iowa GOP Caucus voters on this issue?

    New Polling Shows 82% of likely GOP Caucus-Attendees Oppose High Interest Rate Loans

    Read that here: http://debttrap.org/content/iowa-republican-caucus-goers-strongly-oppose-predatory-payday-loans

  2. Steve Hickey

    Me thinks Pat you are joined at the hit with your “sources.” You call this the Hildebrand/Hickey measure. My sources tell me the 18% blocking measure could be called the Lederman/Furlong, Chuck Brennan, Rod Aycox, Brett Koenecke measure. I’ve emailed my friends Dan Lederman and Dave Roetman to see if they are connected to the 18% measure as I’m been told. No reply. Maybe your sources can confirm and we can get the players in this story out in the daylight.

    1. Pat Powers Post author

      Steve, not everyone agrees with your position on the measure.

      And when has it not been the Hildebrand/Hickey measure? You certainly paraded it around as such for the TV cameras.

      1. Steve Hickey

        No issue with calling it the Hildebrand/Hickey measure. In fact to clarify and distinguish the real cap from the fake one people ask if the 36% is the one we are behind. My point was that it’s time to put names and faces with the 18% measure.

  3. Troy Jones

    Pat,

    What is the nature of the challenge? Signatures, Constitutionality or other legal challenge, regulatory?

  4. jimmy james

    At this point I support it but I can also understand opposition to the 36% cap. I do not feel, however, that the 18% cap is legitimate nor do I think anyone promoting it is being candid. Sorry.

  5. JC

    If we ban these loans, demand for them won’t go away. Now the same poor people will be getting these loans from unregulated sources. Driving the payday lenders out of town isn’t going to magically eliminate financial ignorance among the poor. I’m all for helping the poor when it is actually helpful but the multi-generational poverty crowd usually only has their own poor life decisions to blame for their status. Most weren’t victimized by pay day lenders, anyone or anything else. For the exceptions to that, there are certainly resources available in this area.

  6. Inspector Lestrade

    Mr. Hickey, I understand you left the state, please just go away …..
    Unless, you and you friend Steve have decided to go after T Denny.
    I didn’t think so.

    1. Steve Hickey

      Dream on. My residence remains the same in SD an im still a district 9 voter even though for now I’m just a student away at the university. Until I get bored with it I plan to follow SD politics and stay involved as I feel led.

  7. Anonymous

    Pass it don’t pass it because it won’t matter. The payday folks will restructure their terms into higher fees like the banks do. Unless you want to take on the banking industry in how they gouge people in overdraft fees in addition to returned check fees you’re wasting your time.

  8. Tony Sayer

    This has absolutely nothing to do with protecting “poor people” from loan sharks. This is an initiative measure designed to appear “good” in the eyes of voters so a limpy Democratic Party in South Dakota can jump-start itself. Hildebrand is an operative, a planner, not a would-be reformer. This thing (like some of the others) was purposely developed to create a Robin Hood effect and pave the way for Dems to attach themselves to it in (near) future elections. Not this election necessarily but just because you can’t see clouds doesn’t mean there isn’t a storm on the horizon somewhere. Unfortunately it is smart strategy and even FDR’s electoral genius Louis Howe must be quivering in his grave because if left unchecked this will bring some success. Sadly our people in Pierre plan on doing nothing. Republicans not defending business and paving the way to put themselves out of jobs later. Hildebrand has to be laughing because not only is that happening in our lame duck pond but GOP affiliated groups gladly jumped in with both feet to ensure we contribute to ending at some point a super-majority. Some voter somewhere, someday is going to look at a ballot and say “I don’t usually vote Democrat but Candidate X did help reign in those darn quick loan people. He/she has my vote.” This initiative like the designers of it could care less if loan sharks make people hock their children to pay their debts; they care how it translates to voters and if it can be seamlessly attached to the Democratic Party in the public eye. Success is needed first though so hopefully a challenge at least creates an obstacle on their road-map.