Comments on: Payday lending votes and related contributions.

By: Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 03:08:19 +0000

Using vpap.org stats to prove possible causality between money and how people vote.

Does this work for donors?

There are two schools of thought on the validity of assuming causality between contributions and voting behavior. The first is that contributions are made to those elected officials whose voting behavior tends to benefit the individual or organization making the contribution. The second is that elected officials modify their voting behavior to ensure that they will receive contributions. The reason that there are two schools of thought on this is because there are two variables. Elected officials do not have a mission statement and, thus, they’re prone to changing their outlooks.

Donations to advocacy organizations, though — which I assume you’re referring to — are reduced to just one variable: the donor. The organization itself has a mission and has to operate within those confines. Individuals contributing to them cannot hope to alter its mission beyond a limited scope. Their donation says far more about them than it does about that organization. The one caveat that I’ll put there is those organizations with a very small contributor base with contributors that are clearly antithetical to the organization’s stated mission. For example, consider an environmental organization sponsored entirely by ExxonMobil. That’s certainly cause for suspicion.

By: Perlogik

Perlogik — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:50:41 +0000

Using vpap.org stats to prove possible causality between money and how people vote.

Does this work for donors?

By: Doug Smith, Virginia Interfaith Center

Doug Smith, Virginia Interfaith Center — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:03:38 +0000

Folks
I am sorry to say that Delegate Ware pulled his bill from the floor of the House today on the third reading. This is really disappointing given the need for an interest rate cap as part of real reform.

We had wanted 36%, the Consumer Finance rate, but we realized that public policy is about compromise. Sadly, the industry does not see it that way and is not willing to be satisfied with double the usury rate.

By: Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:48:57 +0000

By my math, folks who received $0-$999 were twice as likely to vote for the amendment as against it. But folks who received $1,000+ were evenly split. Seems to me that receiving large amounts of money from the payday loan industry is a significant predictor of voting outcome.

By: Olivia

Olivia — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:17:32 +0000

Maybe Frederick, Marshall, and Lingamfelter were off in a strategy session for HB 2797. Geez, half the PWC delegation was MIA.

By: Leslie Byrne

Leslie Byrne — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:18:18 +0000

72% was chosen because it is double the 36% cap the federal government imposes on military personnel. After the feds discovered the military readiness was being effected by the back breaking debt created by pay day lenders they capped it. I want to remind everyone that this type of lending was illegal prior to 2002.

By: Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:28:02 +0000

That specific tool won’t help (it’s graphical, intended to be run at the desktop, rather than on a server), but the site for it is quite helpful — you’ve sent me down a path that I wouldn’t have otherwise discovered. Thanks for that!

By: novamiddleman

novamiddleman — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:22:24 +0000

My technology skills are fairly basic maybe this tool could help?

http://salstat.sourceforge.net/index.php?index

By: novamiddleman

novamiddleman — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:14:44 +0000

Could anyone explain why 72% was chosen it seems like such a random number

By: Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:41:37 +0000

Wow, that seems like a really great program, Kai — thanks very much for that reference. I have a meeting with some folks at UVa about a related project later on this week — I’ll see if they have any suggested approaches, too.

I’ve often said that Richmond Sunlight, as it launched, was at a base level. That was the absolute bare minimum that could be done. It’s when all of that information comes together in one place that the fun — like regression analysis — happens. :)

By: Tim McCormack

Tim McCormack — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:25:00 +0000

@Waldo: Doing so would oh, quadruple the value of Richmond Sunlight. I’d have to nominate you for some sort of Nobel Prize for Open Government.

By: Kai

Kai — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:23:54 +0000

Waldo – I just looked around for some communities that might be able to connect you with a programmer who’d be into developing something like this.

You might try the Democracy in Cyberspace Initiative at Yale Law School, http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/strongdem/overview.html. They would probably take interest in your greater goal with this website as well as giving you a tip to finding a programmer willing to donate some time.

By: Vivian J. Paige

Vivian J. Paige — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:15:56 +0000

If I understand this correctly, prior to the amendment offered by Del. McClellan, the existing 300+% was going to stay in effect. The amendment capped the interest at 72%, which certainly was an improvement.

By: Mark Brooks

Mark Brooks — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:53:03 +0000

Maybe Jeff Fredrick was busy waving to a nearby camera, thus, too busy to vote.

By: David Englin

David Englin — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:46:29 +0000

Leslie – I have never taken a walk on any vote, and I never will. Had I been there and not caring for a sick child, I would have proudly voted for Del. McClellan’s amendment, and I look forward to a recorded vote on the bill tomorrow.