The Senate Banking, Finance and Insurance Committee heard the bill on Wednesday, and things would not get well for the bill’s opponents, whom included the middle for Responsible Lending and Consumers Union.

The Senate Banking, Finance and Insurance Committee heard the bill on Wednesday, and things would not get well for the bill’s opponents, whom included the middle for Responsible Lending and Consumers Union.

On Monday we blogged about AB 377 (Mendoza), which may allow Californians to publish a check that is personal up to $500 to secure a quick payday loan, up notably through the present optimum of $300. A borrower who writes a $500 check to a payday lender would get a $425 loan – which must be repaid in full in just two weeks or so – and pay a $75 fee under this proposed change. That’s quite a payday for payday loan providers. But significantly more than that, a bigger loan size would likely boost the wide range of Californians whom become perform payday-loan borrowers – settling one loan after which instantly taking out fully another (and another) simply because they lack adequate earnings to both repay their initial loan and satisfy their fundamental cost of living for the following fourteen days.

The committee passed the balance on a bipartisan vote that is 7-1. Despite overwhelming proof that payday advances trap many borrowers in long and high priced cycles of financial obligation, the committee decided that allowing payday lenders in order to make much bigger loans is sound public policy. One Democrat asked rhetorically: “Is the industry ideal? No. Does it offer a valuable credit option for Californians? Definitely.”

This concern about credit choices ended up being echoed by a number of committee users. Read more