Montana Loan Interest Rate Limit, I-164 (2010)
The Montana Loan Interest Rate Limit Initiative, also known as I-164, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Montana as an initiated state statute, where it was approved. The measure capped yearly interest rates of payday and title loans at 36 percent. The previous interest rate was 400 percent. The initiative effort was spearheaded by the organization, 400 Percent is Too High, and was backed by Tom Jacobson. Jacobson is the executive director of Rural Dynamics. According to Jacobson, "We see people come in all the time using one payday lender to pay off the other one, to pay off the other one. The fees increase and they have to borrow more, and they can't get out of the circle." The measure was certified for circulation, leaving organizers to gather signatures for the June 18, 2010 petition drive deadline. The measure collected enough signatures to make it to the ballot, according to the Montana Secretary of State.
Industry officials in the state claimed that the measure's passage will result in the closure of at least 100 or so Montana businesses, and also even more jobs would be lost. Industry officials also stated that the passage left consumers with less options for credit. The measure went into effect on January 1, 2011, and businesses began preparation early. Under the measure, payday lenders were able to charge $1.38 for a $100 two-week plan, which according to Martine Ramos-Vargas, an employee at a state Check 'n Go, is not enough to stay afloat. According to Vargas, "We would not make enough money to pay the rent on the building. Our last day of business is Nov. 19. We were hoping that it (I-164) would not pass so that we could just resume business on the third (of November)."
Election law violations
On Jul 3, 2012, the state political practices commissioner, Jim Murry, determined that eight different groups broke election laws while campaigning in support of the measure. The groups found in violation of the rules were: 400 Percent Interest Is Too High — Cap the Rate, Montana Women Vote, Montana Human Rights Network, AARP Montana, Rural Dynamics Inc., NeighborWorks Montana, and Montana Community Foundation and its endowed fund, the Women’s Foundation of Montana.
The investigation stemmed from a complaint filed by payday loan business owner, Bernie Harrington, in 2010. Though it was too late to have any impact on the measure itself, the state explored legal options which included fining the various groups.
- See also: 2010 ballot measure election results
Official results follow:
|Montana I-164 (2010)|
Election results via: Montana Secretary of State
Text of measure
The ballot title that voters will see on the ballot reads:
|“||Under Montana law, deferred deposit (payday) lenders may charge fees equaling one-fourth of the loan, which is the same as an annual interest rate of 300 percent for a 31-day loan or 650 percent for a 14-day loan. Title lenders may charge interest equaling one-fourth of the loan, which is the same as an annual interest rate of 300 percent for a 30-day loan. I-164 reduces the interest, fees, and charges that payday, title, and retail installment lenders may charge to an annual interest rate of 36 percent. It prohibits businesses from structuring other transactions to avoid the rate limit.
I-164 reduces the license and examination fee revenue paid to the State because certain lenders may not renew their licenses.
[ ] FOR reducing the annual interest, fees, and charges payday, title, and retail installment lenders may charge on loans to 36 percent.
[ ] AGAINST reducing the annual interest, fees, and charges payday, title, and retail installment lenders may charge on loans to 36 percent 
- NeighborWorks Montana, a group based out of Great Falls, stated that the United States Congress protected military families from large interest rates by capping loans at 36 percent. The group said that all families in the state should reap the same benefits. According to Sheila Rice, a member of the organization, "We believe that all Montana families deserve the same protection. I don’t think the legislature understands the impact on families in Montana."
|Administration of government on the ballot in 2010|
- Senators Dave Lewis and Christine Kaufmann were supporters of the measure, with Kaufmann stating, "Senator Lewis and I don’t agree on everything, but we do agree on this. Four-hundred percent (interest) is too high."
- Senator Lewis stated, "As a Republican, I don’t usually support more regulation, but this is the right thing to do."
- Claudia Clifford, advocacy director of the AARP, Kim Abbott, Montana Human Rights Network's program director, and Mary Craigle, Montana Community Foundation board member were all for the measure.
- Tom Jacobson, executive director of Rural Dynamics, was in support the measure, stating, "Four-hundred percent is absolutely too high. It's too high ethically. It's too high financially. Once we can get this capped at 36 percent, we are going to help people become better long-term consumers." Rural Dynamics was a consumer credit counseling service in the state.
- Two veterans of U.S. wars wrote an opinion piece in the Billings Gazette in support of the measure. John Bullshows, who served in the Vietnam war, and Matt Deutscher, who served in the Iraq war, wrote, "Back in 2006, the U.S. military did the right thing. It took action to protect military families by capping the interest rates on predatory payday and car title loans. Now Montana voters are poised to do the same. By voting for Initiative 164 this year, Montanans will be helping to protect their fellow citizens from abusive loan practices that trap people in debt and hurt our economy. As veterans and Montanans we are glad we have the opportunity to follow the military’s fine example."
Campaigning, events and stories
- Supporters of the measure held a rally in Great Falls on September 1, 2010 in favor of the measure. According to Liz Stoeckel, the Fund Development Coordinator at HomeWORD, "Passing this ballot initiative to cap the interest rate, on payday and car title loans, will strengthen the economy. The majority of these businesses are owned by out of state companies. They collect millions of dollars in fees from Montana working families every year.."
- Supporters of the measure launched their campaign for its passage on September 2, 2010 in downtown Helena. The press conference included Senators Dave Lewis and Christine Kaufmann.
- A debate was held about the measure on September 28, 2010 at the Missoula Public Library. The debate was held by the League of Women voters, where both sides of the issue were debated by supporters and opponents. Greg Harper of the Consumer Credit Council, and who was a supporter of the initiative stated, "I'm grateful for the opportunity to give a voice to my clients that suffer at the hands of these high-interest rate loans. These types of loans really trap consumers into a cycle of debt that is very difficult for them to overcome." Supporters called the interest rate on a payday loan as "predatory" and that the measure would protect the state's low-income residents.
- Supporters of the measure planned to hold a telephone town hall meeting to discuss the proposal on October 7, 2010. According to the organizers of the event, between 3,000 and 6,000 people took part in the meeting, which included national experts. According to AARP Montana Advocacy Director Claudia Clifford, who moderated the call, "This call gives thousands of voters the opportunity to ask questions and hear how I-164 will protect state consumers from the triple-digit interest rates on these loans."
- Julie Howen of Title Cash Stores states that lenders may struggle if the measure is passed by voters in November. Howen stated, "There’s no way, if this passes, the services we offer will no longer be available in Montana." Howen later added that the service that she provides is necessary, stating, "Banks don't want to deal with small amounts or short term loans, that’s one of the biggest issues where we really feel there is a market need."
- Ed Kemmick of the Billings Gazette stated that the measure is 'misguided', arguing the following point as to why interest rates shouldn't be capped, "Borrowers can take out loans from multiple vendors, even though they are required to fill out a form saying they have no outstanding loans with other lenders. That’s open to abuse, obviously, but if it’s really a problem the solution is creating an electronic statewide database, not capping the interest rate."
Campaigns, rallies and events
- A debate was held about the measure on September 28, 2010 at the Missoula Public Library. The debate was held by the League of Women voters, where both sides of the issue were debated by supporters and opponents. According to Bernard Harrington, who is an industry spokesperson who owns payday loan stores, stated that the measure is a prohibition on short term loan industry. Harrington argued at the debate, "In today's economy, when banks and other financial institutions are charging up to $35 to bounce a $5 check, it makes the $15 we charge on a $100 loan look pretty small."
- The Bozeman Daily Chronicle stated its opposition to the measure, arguing, "It's unfortunate that many Montanans find themselves so cash-strapped that they have to turn to these loans. But the fact of the matter is they do. And without payday loans, they could be in desperate straits. Voters should reject I-164."
- The Great Falls Tribune was against the measure, urging a 'no' vote by writing, "We regret that many people do feel the need for these loans, and we agree with initiative backers that consumer education would go a long way toward obviating the need for them. But as long as there are people who have funding crises, there will be a market for this type of business. Passing I-164 will just drive it underground or onto the Internet, where no one's watching. Vote against I-164."
On August 17, 2010, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the measure could stay on the November ballot, after The Montana Consumer Finance Association requested that the court remove it from the ballot. The measure was allowed to stay on the ballot after a 4-2 vote to allow the measure to be decided by voters, but to alter the for and against statements and the statement of purpose on the ballot. That ruling can be found here.
The group requesting that the measure be taken off the ballot did so due to their concerns that the Montana Attorney General, Steve Bullock, did not comply with state law, because ballot statements prepared by the AG's office were not impartial. According to Justice Brian Morris, "We decline petitioners' request to overrule the attorney general's legal sufficiency for I-164, or to tamper with the text of the initiative itself. The attorney general acted within his considerable discretion in drafting the ballot statements and fiscal statements for I-164."
Despite the Montana Supreme Court's ruling, opponents asked a district judge to block the Montana Secretary of State from sending the measure to the ballot, due to the ballot language change that the Supreme Court requested. Opponents argued that the change in the language should void petitions signed by state voters because they saw different versions of the initiative.
Two day trial
A two day trial began on September 30, 2010 regarding the second attempt of opponents to try to take the measure off of the ballot. Supporters of the measure began their arguments on the second day of the trial. According to supporters' attorney Jimm Reynolds, "We're hopeful we're successful on behalf of the 27,000 people who signed petitions and want it on the ballot. If we're denied, the initiative process may be dead in Montana."
C.B. Pearson, the senior vice president of the firm hired to collect the signatures on the initiative's petition, M+R Strategic Services, stated, "This is a classic example. A coalition of citizen organizations have been fighting (to cap the interest rates) at the last three legislative sessions...They've had no choice but to go to the people because they couldn't overcome the power of the payday lender lobbyists."
Opponents, in the first day of the trial, accused the petition drive of lying about the payday and title-loan industry and having illegal contests among signature collectors, among other accusations.
District Judge C.B. McNeil of Polson ruled Oct. 7 that there was no evidence that the law had been broken in collecting signatures, and that the measure would remain on the ballot. There was no immediate word about an appeal.
Path to the ballot
Petition circulators had until the June 18, 2010 petition drive deadline to turn in the required 24,337 signatures, since the proposed measure is a citizen-initiated state statute. Counties had until July 16, 2010 to send verified signatures to the Montana Secretary of State's office, where the Secretary of State may or may not qualify it for the ballot, pending another review of signatures.
- Montana 2010 ballot measures
- 2010 ballot measures
- List of Montana ballot measures
- History of Initiative & Referendum in Montana
- Voter Information Pamphlet of the Montana 2010 ballot measures, prepared by the Montana Secretary of State
- Planned statewide initiative would cap interest rate on payday loans at 36 percent
- Montana offers guidance on signature gathering at polling places
- Battle of the ballots
- Women's Foundation of Montana
- Ballot Measures
- On our minds: Opposing views on I-161
- Closing of Montana Lending Offices Will Cost Montana Jobs, Credit Options, Lender Says
- Montana Secretary of State, "2010 Ballot Issues"
- Public News Service, "Montana Initiative Takes on the Payday Loan Industry," February 24, 2010
- The Missoulian, "3 ballot measures qualify for November," July 20, 2010
- Montana Secretary of State, "Historical Ballot Initiatives and Referenda," accessed August 6, 2014
- Montana Secretary of State, "Archive Publications," accessed August 6, 2014
- Great Falls Tribune, "Debate over I-164 rages as high-rate lenders prepare to close," November 7, 2010
- Independent Record, "Initiative backers tagged with violations," July 4, 2012
- Montana Secretary of State, "2010 Voter Information Pamphlet"
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- Queen City News, "Initiative proposed to cap interest rates," February 24, 2010.
- Queen City News, "Initiative 164 supporters launch campaign," September 8, 2010
- Bozeman Daily Chronicle, "Initiative to cap interest rates on November ballot," September 27, 2010
- Billings Gazette, "Guest opinion: I-164 would protect families from usurious rates," October 18, 2010
- KPAX.com, "I-164 amis to cap payday loan rates," September 1, 2010
- KRTV.com, "Initiative to cap "payday" loans debated in Missoula," September 29, 2010
- KAJ18.com, "I-164 supporters holding statewide event," October 6, 2010
- KFBB.com, "Ballot Initiative Could Put Short Term Lenders out of Business," July 27, 2010
- Billings Gazette, "City Lights: Payday loan initiative is ‘misguided’," October 9, 2010
- The Billings Gazette, "I-164 foes have equal bankrolls," October 2, 2010
- The Bozeman Daily Chronicle, "Chronicle editorial: Editorial board offers endorsements on key initiatives," October 20, 2010
- Great Falls Tribune, "'Cap the rate' initiative has appeal but should be rejected," October 27, 2010
- Missoulian, "Montana Supreme Court OKs payday loan initiative," August 18, 2010
- Billings Gazette, "Opponents of interest rate cap seeks to prevent I-164 certification," August 19, 2010
- Canadian Business, "Payday loan initiative foes make another attempt to block proposal from reaching Mont. ballot," August 20, 2010
- Missoulian, "'Payday loan' initiative backers state case in Polson trial," October 1, 2010
- Independent Record, "Judge rules that payday lender initiative will remain on ballot," October 7, 2010
- Billings Gazette, "2 initiatives likely qualified for fall ballot; 4 are question marks," June 18, 2010
State of Montana
List of Montana ballot measures | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | History of direct democracy | Campaign Finance Requirements | Recall process |
|State executive officers||
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Director of the Department of Revenue | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Securities and Insurance | Director of Agriculture | Director of Natural Resources and Conservation | Commissioner of Labor and Industry | Public Service Commission |