These Are The 65 Democrats That Support A Bill To Allow Car Dealers To Charge People Of Color More Than White Customers...

"Andrew T. Maness" (theroadlessdriven) 11/17/2015 at 15:35 • Filed to: Politics, Auto News, Auto Industry, Andrew Maness, Washington D.C., Honda, Auto Loans

8

63

Below are the names of the 65 jackasses who don’t see anything wrong with the practice of car dealers charging non-white customers more for vehicles, than those that are white. The bill, written by those dreamy idealists known as Republicans, would nullify regulations put in place by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau back in 2013. Discriminatory lending is of course illegal, but banks aren’t about to let a little thing like legality get in the way of them maximizing profits.

Most of us are familiar with the process of obtaining an auto loan, whether it be through the dealer, or through an outside lending source of our choosing. The interest rate assigned to your loan should be based on your overall financial background, and nothing else. If you’re white, that’ll likely be the case, although shady lenders tend to play by their own rules no matter the race of the individual seeking a loan.

But we’re not talking about Big Earl’s E-Z Auto Loans. We’re talking about large financial institutions like Ally Bank , and automakers like Honda, both of which have seen the CFPB come down on them for overcharging non-white borrowers.

That this practice is even up for discussion at this point is shameful. I know Washington is the city of compromise, and I have no doubt that each and every one of the people on this list are supporting this awful legislation in return for something else that may have a positive impact.

But that’s unlikely. The reality of the situation is the auto industry has lobbyists with pockets as deep as the Mariana Trench, and they’ll dig into them as much as needed to make sure they get their way.

Head over to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! for a comprehensive break down of why this bill is bad news, and then take a minute to look up to contact information for your state representatives who appear below. I urge you to give them a call, let them know that their support of garbage like this will cost them your vote in the next election.

Politics have never interested me much, I don’t have an allegiance to either of the big parties, but this isn’t about politics, it’s about right and wrong, and this is so very, very wrong.

Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), David Scott (D-Ga.), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Daniel T. Kildee (D-Mich.), Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), Sanford Bishop Jr. (D-Ga.), Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), Ann Kuster (D-N.H.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), Patrick Murphy (D-Fla.), Brad Ashford (D-Neb.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.), Gene Green (D-Fla.), Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas), Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), Ron Kind (D-Wis.), David Loebsack (D-Iowa), Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Marc Veasay (D-Texas), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.), Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), Timothy Walz (D-Minn.), Filemon Vela (D-Texas), Michael Doyle (D-Pa.), Gerald Connolly (D-Va.), Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), Gwen Graham (D-Fla.), Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.), Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), Robert Brady (D-Pa.), Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), Mark Takai (D- Hawaii), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Norma Torres (D-Calif.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Ablio Sires (D-N.J.), Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sam Farr (D-Calif.)

Follow me on Twitter !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

jjhats > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 15:40

7

how is this different than an insurance company profiling someone for things other than their driving record? If statistically whites pay on time and non whites don’t then why shouldn’t they factor that in? insurance companies pay attention to race age and gender and most don’t seem to think that’s discriminatory

aberson Bresident of the FullyAssed Committe > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 15:41

1

This is serious?

Like people that hold government power honestly think this is ok?

What

THE

FUCK

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 15:44

11

I understand the sentiment, and agree with you wholeheartedly. But there are are 101 republican co-sponsors too, why not decry every co-sponsor?

By singling out the Democrats you are either saying that Republicans are given racists, or that you have a personal bone to pick with the Democrats.

RazoE > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 15:45

1

Maybe it’s time for reform? I shouldn’t have to pay for my uncle Juan’s lousy record. I’m sure if dancing schools charged whites more for likely “having two left feet” there’d be an uproar as well.

Supreme Chancellor and Glorious Leader SaveTheIntegras > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 15:45

1

Oh america...

Ash78, voting early and often > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 15:45

4

If the rest of their credit profile warrants it, I say charge them more!

Unfortunately, I’m in banking and we’ve been beaten into submission that we HAVE to lend some to riskier people simply because the outcomes of making sound business decisions TEND to benefit white people.It’s called “disparate impact” IIRC.

Andrew T. Maness > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 15:47

2

I don’t think I’m qualified to answer in any other way than that I think it’s equally fucked up.

Rainbow > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 15:47

11

Because it’s scientifically irrelevant. Any statistics that say otherwise are just coincidental. You could divide people by eye color and find that, say, green-eyed people are statistically the worst at paying off loans. That’s just an observation and shouldn’t play into anything ever.

The only physical thing about a person that should matter is age, and even then it should play the smallest part overall.

Sam > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 15:48

1

Isn’t this really the same as charging more for health insurance when someone has a known, chronic health condition? Statistics don’t take sides, they just are. And if statistics say that people who aren’t white are higher risk for loans, then it would be safe to assume that the interest rate would be higher for the higher risk loan. I really don’t have a horse in this race since I'm an all-American WASP, but this is my view on the matter.

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 15:48

7

There’s a very fine, and often very grey, line between statistical analysis and discrimination.

It’s always a tricky subject to touch on, but really the issue comes down to intent.

If you’re using statistical data provided to you saying that certain groups of people based on a characteristic (geographical location, gender, hair color, economic status, educational background, etc) tend to act in a particular way, that’s simply statistical analysis. Obviously those findings don’t apply to every individual within that group, but the companies don’t know that person and have to operate with the general information provided to them. It’s not ideal, but it’s realistic and efficient; two qualities that business favors.

Now if the dealer says, “Hey, this black guy wants to buy a car and I know black people are lazy and don’t work hard or pay bills on time. So I’m gonna give him a huge interest rate to make sure we don’t get screwed!” Then you’ve clearly got an issue. The problem is, you’ll have a tough time proving that, unless the dealer is an idiot.

Thankfully, a lot of racists are idiots so it is more likely to come out.

TO CLARIFY: I am not saying that this sort of statistical analysis is okay. In fact, I think that nearly all stats are inherently flawed, because there are just way too many variables to account for to ever have a perfectly controlled and incredibly accurate study. Most stats are skewed by biases that come from the designers of the studies, whether intentional or not. My point is simply that it’s not inherently racist, unless the goal is to disparage an individual because you don’t like the color of their skin. The same could be said if you were analyzing data taken in relation to people’s religious orientation. It’s not a blatant discrimination unless you’re doing it to hurt that person because you don’t like that thing about them.

Judging everything by statistics, though, is a rather poor way of evaluating an individual.

jjhats > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 15:49

0

seriously? you don’t think insurance companies know what they are doing? do you also think a wrx owner shouldn’t pay more than a corolla owner?

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 15:49

3

Use of disparate impact as the only qualification as to whether something is or is not racist has always been a crock of shit. Which isn’t to say thay markup lending is a great idea - as it offers the dealer a kind of leeway not every sales market has to be a dick - but description as de facto racist is weak. Also:

I have no doubt that each and every one of the people on this list are supporting this awful legislation in return for something else that may have a positive impact.

Andrew T. Maness > Ash78, voting early and often 11/17/2015 at 15:49

0

If the rest of their credit profile warrants it, I say charge them more!

I agree with that 100%. But from what I understand, this bill isn’t about numbers, it’s about race.

jjhats > Rainbow 11/17/2015 at 15:50

2

except that young teen boys crash cars....that’s not a coincidence, same with mustang owners tendency to stoplight race other cars. all this is proven data not coincidences and is used for very good reasons

pjhusa > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 15:55

0

I sincerely thought that Republicans would be behind this, and back it up.

Patrick Nichols > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 15:58

3

Shouldn’t you be urging people to contact the rupublicans too?

davedave1111 > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 15:59

3

In the EU it’s illegal for insurance companies to use gender and age anymore - and race has been off the table for at least twenty years.

The idea is that you should only be penalised for things you have a choice about. So your driving record, your career, who you associate with, where you live, are fair game. Your age, sex, or skin/eye/hair colour are not. We haven’t yet been entirely consistent in applying that, but it’s coming.

jariten1781 > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 15:59

0

No...they’re supporting not holding indirect lenders accountable for discriminatory practices by the F&I folks at dealers. They’d still be liable for any discriminatory practices they’d commit and the dealers would be as well at their level.

That bulletin was essentially an unfunded mandate that indirect lenders enforce equal opportunity provisions in lieu of the government doing so. It’s tantamount to holding a cattle rancher accountable for food poisoning when a restaurant didn’t follow health standards allowing their beef to spoil.

CalzoneGolem > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 11/17/2015 at 16:01

1

No one fucks with The Goblin King!

jjhats > davedave1111 11/17/2015 at 16:02

1

this is beyond fucked up. whats next I sue the NBA for not drafting me to play ball because im not 7 foot? after all its out of my control and not fair

wiffleballtony > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 16:03

0

I can only speak for my state, however my personal interactions with the representative on the list, is extremely liberal, can’t imagine she’d vote for something that disctiminates.

davedave1111 > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 16:03

0

That all sounds really odd to me. As I understand it from that article, the problem is that dealers charge higher markups to ‘black’ customers - but I can’t see why the buyers would let them, in a competitive market, unless every car dealer is similarly racist.

davedave1111 > Ash78, voting early and often 11/17/2015 at 16:04

1

“If the rest of their credit profile warrants it, I say charge them more!”

Sure. But these cases are about where it doesn’t, and the dealer is adding a larger markup on the loan where the customer is ‘black’.

Rainbow > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 16:05

1

Young teen drivers are more likely to crash, yes. That’s why age should matter to an extent.

davedave1111 > Sam 11/17/2015 at 16:05

9

“Isn’t this really the same as charging more for health insurance when someone has a known, chronic health condition?”

No. It’s the opposite: charging the ‘black’ guy more when they have the same condition as the ‘white’ guy.

Ash78, voting early and often > davedave1111 11/17/2015 at 16:06

1

I don’t understand...that’s not even creative. That’s outright discrimination. Historically, they’d at least do things like “not lend to people who live in certain parts of town” (redlining) to accomplish this.

I suspect there’s a lot more nuance to the bill, but I’ll have to find time to read. This is very much unlike the Dems to vote for something like this.

Rainbow > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 16:06

0

But that actually makes a difference. Obviously if someone is born blind, they’re not getting a car even though they can’t help it. All this other stuff is 100% irrelevant and, yeah, shouldn’t be used in determining someone’s rates.

jjhats > Rainbow 11/17/2015 at 16:06

0

as should sex and race

duurtlang > Rainbow 11/17/2015 at 16:07

2

I have no knowledge of racial effects on the tendency to crash. But I don’t see why an insurance company, which is in the business of making risk assessments, can’t make a risk assessment based on all the metrics they’ve got. We all know people of a certain age (teens and the elderly) are more likely to crash than others. You can’t change your age, you’re not at fault for being a certain age and you have zero effect on what other people your age do. Postal code is a something similar. If my neighbours have a relatively high tendency to crash their cars, my insurance premiums go up. And then there’s sex. As far as I know women pay less for car insurance, probably because insurance companies have found that they claim less crash damage.

So, who determines what metrics insurance companies can and can’t use? Is it wrong to let sex, age or location influence insurance premiums? If the answer is yes, than using racial background is wrong as well. If the answer is no, then there’s nothing wrong with using race either.

edit : I wrote this looking at professional insurance companies with sound statistics. Not looking at dealers who use their ‘gut feeling’.

davedave1111 > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 16:08

1

If they reject you in favour of someone no more effective at playing netball simply on the basis of height, then yes, that is unfair discrimination.

jjhats > Rainbow 11/17/2015 at 16:08

0

strongly disagree. when you consider such a huge factor as sex eg split up all accidents into male and female and a very clear picture is drawn. we cant simply ignore this. same with race. statistics are fascinating and not bullshit

davedave1111 > Ash78, voting early and often 11/17/2015 at 16:09

0

It does sound odd that this practice exists, but it seems to.

It’s not worth reading the bill, all it says is ‘section XYZ of the CPFB no longer has any effect’ or some such, where that section is the one prohibiting discriminatory lending practices.

Rainbow > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 16:09

1

You don’t understand how statistics work, do you? Statistically speaking, most black people live in Africa. I have a black neighbor. Therefore, my neighbor lives in Africa. A statistic is only an observation and says nothing at all about an individual.

The only reason age matters is because it’s related to experience. Sex and race are completely unrelated to driving or paying bills.

Rainbow > duurtlang 11/17/2015 at 16:11

1

Age is related to experience, so that makes sense to use. Sex and race are totally irrelevant; any statistics surrounding those are just observations that say nothing about the individuals involved.

jjhats > Rainbow 11/17/2015 at 16:14

0

youre so wrong it hurts

Rainbow > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 16:14

0

So charge the women who are better drivers less than the men who are worse. That will happen naturally if you don’t force ALL men to pay more. Just base it off of individuals instead of groups.

Rainbow > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 16:16

0

Explain how that’s wrong. How is it better to group people by race and treat them all exactly the same than to do things on an individual basis?

jjhats > Rainbow 11/17/2015 at 16:16

0

women already do pay less

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 16:16

2

I’m going to disagree, most stats are bullshit. The ones that aren’t, are generally a very small piece of the actual pie and need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. In order to really understand a statistic you need to understand the original intent of the study, all factors taken into account, sample size, location of the sample size, etc. There are so many variables, it’s very difficult to really get an accurate picture. Especially when you’re applying those statistics to people on a mass scale.

Not saying that you can’t glean interesting insights from stats, but there’s a lot to take into consideration before you accept any stat as a well-established and sound scientific fact.

Rainbow > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 16:18

0

Yes, and not all of them deserve to. Some men deserve to pay even less. Driving ability is different from person to person and has nothing to do with sex.

duurtlang > Rainbow 11/17/2015 at 16:19

0

Age doesn’t say anything about individuals either. You have 18 year old individuals that drive perfectly and you’ve got 50 year old individuals that can’t drive safely if their life depended on it. However, statistically speaking... That’s the whole point.

I’ve got a bit of a dilemma. I’m opposed to differentiation based on race, yet I don’t really oppose age-related differentiation. Yet I have no rational argument to differentiate between the two.

Maybe it’s just best to differentiate on individual history alone, and nothing else.

jjhats > Rainbow 11/17/2015 at 16:23

0

Ok what criteria do you think is ok to use? you said age but not race and sex. am I allowed to use car choice? what about if they are married? what about If they are gay? what about it there vision is trash? what about if they have a criminal record? what about if they have children? what about if they are disabled/handicapped? where do you draw the fucking line? I swear the PC movement is KILLING this country. What are you allowed to discriminate on and what aren’t you? this data matters and is relevant individual basis is stupid cuz somewhere a 60 year old man owns a wrx and drives the speed limit. and somewhere else a 40 year old single man in a corolla has been in 12 accidents this year. and somewhere else a 90 year old Asian lady has never had an accident. you cant rely on individual basis it would never work

Rainbow > duurtlang 11/17/2015 at 16:24

0

It’s just experience. Sure, some people are great drivers at a young age - in fact, I don’t think anyone believes me when I say I’ve never gotten a ticket or had an accident in just these first 4 years of driving. At this point, I should be getting discounts for that, but right up front when a person is just starting to drive? Yeah, there’s a very good chance that person’s inexperience will cause trouble.

duurtlang > pjhusa 11/17/2015 at 16:25

1

From the article:

The bill was written by Republicans, but currently has 65 Democratic co-sponsors

My interpretation is that they argue that it’s to be expected that Republicans support such a bill, but they hold Democrats to a higher standard.

Rainbow > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 16:27

1

You’re not even worth talking to anymore. I’ve made several valid points and I know that you know it

Plus your last sentence there completely contradicts the examples you gave before it. Those are exactly why an individual basis WOULD work.

duurtlang > Rainbow 11/17/2015 at 16:32

0

Yes, I agree. But you’re basing this on statistics while you just argued statistics don’t say anything about an individual. Let me throw a quote in here. A quote from you:

Statistically speaking, most black people live in Africa. I have a black neighbor. Therefore, my neighbor lives in Africa. A statistic is only an observation and says nothing at all about an individual.

Why is a statistic based on age valid if a statistic based on sex or race isn’t? That’s rather inconsistent. Individually a 18 year old can have more experience than a 50 year old, even though it’s statistically unlikely.

jjhats > Rainbow 11/17/2015 at 16:33

0

you didn’tell me which were allowed to us tho. how am I supposed to come up with a quote for someone? you do realize statisticions are real people? and that there job is real? go watch along came polly youll understand what goes into insuring someone its also one of the funniest movies ive ever seen

Rainbow > jjhats 11/17/2015 at 16:40

1

By looking at their personal driving history.

Rainbow > duurtlang 11/17/2015 at 16:41

0

It’s not really a statistic so much as a measurement of an individual’s driving experience. It just happens to correlate with age.

jjhats > Rainbow 11/17/2015 at 16:45

0

LOL good luck basing a price on 2 or 3 variables instead of the 100 they currently use

Andrew T. Maness > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 11/17/2015 at 20:11

0

I have a bone to pick with both parties.

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 20:13

0

Then why single out the dems?

Andrew T. Maness > duurtlang 11/17/2015 at 20:15

0

Given the current overall policies from each party, I’d say it’s not surprising that Republicans could be expected to support the bill. Not saying all Republicans are racist and all Democrats aren’t because that’s obviously not true.

However, there is a dominant lean within each party.

Andrew T. Maness > Patrick Nichols 11/17/2015 at 20:17

1

Yes, I should have, and the fact that I didn’t is a good example why I should stay away from political writings in the future.

Or use this as a lesson, and go down the rabbit hole.

Patrick Nichols > Andrew T. Maness 11/17/2015 at 20:22

1

Go down the rabbit hole! Politics should be discussed everywhere a lot more than it is. If you don’t always know what you’re talking about that can lead to an enlightenment. Too many people in this country are content not understanding anything about our political system and therefore are not equipped to make informed decisions at the polls.

This is good kinja.

Andrew T. Maness > Patrick Nichols 11/17/2015 at 20:25

1

On this, we most certainly agree.

Andrew T. Maness > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 11/17/2015 at 20:26

1

Because they’re the ones that you don’t expect to co-sponsor this kind of thing, and their names were listed.

Santiago of Escuderia Boricua > Andrew T. Maness 11/18/2015 at 08:37

0

This is disgusting. Not that surprising, since democrats are still mostly white and still affected by lobbying. Profit over everything. Plus there is plenty of racism on the left, it’s just usually more subtle than the right

MFEJAL grey because who knows... > Andrew T. Maness 11/18/2015 at 09:18

0

Funny how hispanic representatives don’t hesitate to support this bill.

Raineyb1013, Misfit Black Girl Island Denizen > Patrick Nichols 11/18/2015 at 10:10

2

Do you really expect this to have any effect on the Republicans? They don’t even pretend to care about regular people.

Patrick Nichols > Raineyb1013, Misfit Black Girl Island Denizen 11/18/2015 at 10:34

0

I know it’s a hard concept to grasp but there are black republicans...

Also you never know if there is a big enough campaign donor that is passionate about it you could get some to sway. Plus there is the whole portion that will be against something like this, but are considered republicans because of their stance on marriage/abortion.

The idea that people can be defined by a two party system is absurd. I consider myself a moderate, but tend to vote democratic because its the lesser of two evils at the moment.

Raineyb1013, Misfit Black Girl Island Denizen > Patrick Nichols 11/18/2015 at 11:02

2

Excuse you, but first of all, you can fuck off with the condescension. I am well aware that there are Black Republicans occasionally they are relatives. None of that has to do with my comment about Republicans caring about regular people. I never said anything about Black people so again, your mention of Black Republicans, aside from being condescending wasn’t even on topic.

But since you did bring it up, let’s be real, Republicans have absolutely no interest in Black people aside from their occasional token so the mention of Black Republicans does nothing to offset their otherwise bigoted and hateful positions toward Black people and other people of color. That’s why they go out of their way to demonize us, disenfranchise us, and otherwise disrespect us at every turn.

Furthermore, there has been no issue where given the choice between protecting or empowering human beings or allowing corporate power to reign where the Republicans have ever taken the side of actual human beings so once again your mention of Black Republicans is superfulous.

If you are making the argument that letting Republicans know that you don’t want car dealerships to discriminate against POC you certainly have not actually done so.

Patrick Nichols > Raineyb1013, Misfit Black Girl Island Denizen 11/18/2015 at 11:34

0

I wasn’t meaning to sound condescending at all. I really don’t understand how there are educated black republicans but I was more referring to the actual politicians that are elected and race is very much on topic if you read the OP. The republican party will have to make some key decisions in favor of minority groups if they want to stay relevant as the majority of their voters are becoming less of the total group.

As far as my own representative, I have emailed Guinta and the other rep for NH (Kuster) as well as Shaheen. I let the former know that bigoted legislature is not how I want NH represented regardless of which way I voted and the latter two that it would be a major step backwards for the NH democratic party. I have not emailed Ayotte yet (though I believe she is off the deep end), but may in the near future.

There will have to be some give and take if we want things to change in this country and I personally would prefer if Democrats (who I voted for) would give in to being a little more fiscally conservative if they could leverage it to make a stand on bigger social issues. This would be a big social issue. Unfortunately the politician I want to vote for doesn’t exist or is not big enough for me to hear their message.