Consumer groups blast Rep. Campbell’s car dealer exemption

[TomCADem]

Source: OC Register

With Rep. John Campbell’s amendment to exempt car dealers from the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency due to be voted on in committee this morning, consumer groups are saying the Irvine Republican has a conflict here and shouldn’t be pushing something for an industry he spent 25 years working in.

UPDATE: Campbell’s amendment was approved 47-21 by the Financial Services Committee. The committee passed the full bill out as well.

The consumer groups, which also include organizations that want election reform, say that Campbell should walk away from his amendment for two reasons. First, because six auto dealerships pay him rent and would benefit from his amendment and he would benefit. And second, that Campbell received $170,000 in campaign contributions from auto dealers since he’s run for Congress.

The groups say Campbell’s personal financial disclosure forms show he received between $600,000 and $6 million in rent last year.



Read more: http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/22/consumer-groups-blast-campbell-amendment-as-a-conflict/40659/

---

John Campbell, who sponsored birther legislation earlier this year, proposed an amendment to the proposed consumer protection agency legislation that he plans on voting against in any event that exempts car dealers.

[caseymoz]

1. This does not make any sense. Why would the committee vote for this?

And since the the guy who proposed it has no good feelings for the bill anyway, and is going to vote against it? Maybe we should see what all the rest of them receive from the used car industry.

Either way, this is just unacceptable. People should call this committee.

[JDPriestly]

2. Why would a car dealer cheat on the financing of a loan?

It could happen occasionally or with specific car dealerships, but if it happened very often, people simply would stop buying cars from a repeat offender.

The loans made by car dealers are made to facilitate car sales. If the buyer cannot pay, the dealer gets back a used car and has to try to collect a debt that is hardly worth the trouble to collect.

A car dealer that cheated on loan terms would soon get a bad reputation among consumers. People talk about this sort of thing.

[cactusfractal]

3. It isn't about making sense...

...it's about the appearance of "working" to help a special interest. Campbell, even if the amendment is torpedoed, can say to those dealers financing his parasitism, "Look, I'm trying to help you. It's the Democrats. Can I have some more money? We'll get 'em NEXT Congress!"

And so it goes. Which is why we need public financing of elections and the removal of cash from the equation.

[caseymoz]

5. You missed the point I meant by "making sense."

I meant why was he allowed to make an amendment to a bill he had no intention of voting for anyway? That doesn't make sense.

Neither does the fact that everybody voted for it.

[caseymoz]

4. They talk about these things? I've never noticed that common topic of conversation.

This caveat emptor approach has a few flaws, it presumes that:

1) People will talk about this a lot and include the dealer's name when they do.

2) One possible response to being ripped off is to be ashamed about it, meaning the stupider the dealer can make the buyer feel, by say, making the rip off more heinous, the less likely the buyer will be to talk about it.

2) Say the buyer is either reading or computer illiterate, will the information ever end up on the Internet?

3) It presumes that the information will be available when somebody is ready to buy the car.

4) The dealership going out of business doesn't mean at all that the owners aren't wealthy. It also doesn't mean that they didn't live well while they were ripping off customers.


Any consumer protection law that doesn't include the used car industry cannot be taken seriously. Sooner or later, we're going to have to write another law just for the used car industry. Remember after Katrina when flooded out cars were being sold all over the US?