Moore allows payday loan bill, other measures to become law without his signature
Gov. Wes Moore (D) will allow a handful of bills to become law without his signature rather than issue vetoes. (File photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters)
A bill meant to regulate so-called 'earned wage access' loans for the first time in Maryland will become law without the governor's signature and over the objections of a coalition that strongly opposed it.
House Bill 1294 is one of a handful of bills that Gov. Wes Moore (D) will allow to become law without his signature, including a measure to clarify provisions of a clean-energy building standard and other to increase oversight of the Department of Information Technology. Moore cited beneficial elements for each bill, but also pointed to provisions that were potentially troublesome, leading him to withhold his signature.
The bills are the last gasp of a month in which the governor signed almost 800 bills from the 2025 General Assembly into law and they come a week after he announced vetoes of 23 measures, including his controversial veto of a bill to create a commission to study possible reparations. Lawmakers are expected to override that veto, if not others.
In Maryland, there is no pocket veto for the governor, who must veto a bill to reject it. Of the left-over bills, the most contentious may have been HB1294, which aims to regulate 'earned wage access' programs that advance workers money they have earned but have not yet received, then requires them to pay it back with interest.
Critics say the bill as drafted exempts app-based lenders from state laws that 'prohibit lending that is discriminatory, is deceptive, or carries extremely high interest rates.' The Center for Responsible Lending said in a statement that the new law makes it easier for Marylanders to be sucked into 'financial quicksand' because of payday loan apps.
'The bill becoming law but without the governor's signature is indicative of serious, widespread concerns about these payday loan apps, including from the governor's administration,' said Whitney Barkley, deputy director of state policy and senior policy counsel for the Center for Responsible Lending.
Moore to veto reparations bill, one of a list of measures he will reject
The center was part of a coalition of more than three dozen advocates, including the NAACP Maryland State Conference, that had urged Moore to veto the bill.
Earned wage access programs typically come in two versions – one offered by employers to their employees and another offered by private companies directly to workers. The loan is typically paid back through automatic deductions, usually with a fee or 'tip.'
Opponents said the tips are finance charges. Often those charges exceed 300% interest, higher than the state's 33% limit. They said the new law 'removes the best defense against predatory lending' in Maryland.
In a letter explaining his decision, the governor said early access to earned wages can 'provide a tangible benefit to workers' with unexpected expenses such as flat tires, medical copays and veterinarian bills.
While he commended lawmakers, including House Economic Matters Chair Del. C.T. Wilson (D-Charles), for 'advancing a path on regulating these products,' Moore also acknowledged concerns with the bill.
Roughly 345,000 residents used wage access apps more than 11 million times between 2019 and 2024, in transactions totaling about $108 million. Nearly one in four accessed the service every two weeks, 'suggesting habitual use,' Moore wrote. About half pay 'expedited fees.'
Those who default on the loans tend to be 65 or older, earning less than $50,000 a year and users tend to live 'in the lowest income communities in the state,' Moore wrote, adding that 'protections are warranted.'
He called for a cap on amounts that can be borrowed from a single or multiple lenders, and said the law should not exempt lenders from existing commercial financial protection laws. Finally, soliciting a tip for a loan 'is inappropriate,' Moore wrote.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
The governor also took a pass on House Bill 49, which would help clarify key provisions of the Building Energy Performance Standards. Some building owners could receive credits, including for generating renewable energy on-site.
The bill was requested by the Department of the Environment, Moore withheld his signature over changes made by the legislature. In a letter explaining his decision, Moore cited 'constrained (budget) resources' and 'significant operational challenges' for the department, which must implement the law.
'And overall, this bill, as amended by the General Assembly, undermines the Department's regulatory flexibility to meet the climate goals set out in the Climate Solutions Now Act,' Moore wrote.
The bill, as requested by the department, was intended to provide flexibility to building owners who must comply with electrification requirements and reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. Failure to do so will result in fees — some as much as $600,000 for poor performing buildings — levied by the Maryland Department of the Environment.
But lawmakers amended the bill to exempt hospitals and some manufacturing facilities. Also exempted are emissions associated with steam sterilization and back-up generators at medical facilities, nursing homes and laboratories.
Senate committee considers taming IT department as part of ongoing budget effort
Moore said he is also 'concerned with the study requirement included in the bill,' which calls on the department to analyze other potential changes to the BEPS program. The governor said the amended bill 'introduces uncertainty into an already complex regulatory effort … It is not clear that the expectations of this study can be met by the department, given the fiscal constraints and timeline challenges the law has put in place.'
Moore will also allow House Bill 738 and Senate Bill 705 to become law without his signature.
The identical bills — sponsored by Del. Anne Kaiser (D-Montgomery) and Sens. Sens. Katie Fry Hester (D-Howard and Montgomery) and Stephen S. Hershey Jr. (R-Upper Shore) — aim to refocus the Department of Information Technology on major projects and ensure compliance with auditors' recommendations.
The law imposes new oversight and reporting requirements on a department who has come under fire from lawmakers and the Office of Legislative Audits. One top lawmaker characterized the agency as a money pit.
A key part of the bill expands and defines the responsibilities of the department secretary on oversight of major IT projects, and it bars the department from contracting for IT services or products that are not consistent with its master plan. The law also requires the department secretary to meet quarterly with the chief information officer of agencies or departments with planned or ongoing IT projects.
It also sets up an expert panel to advise the legislature on IT issues and requires the Senate Budget and Taxation and House Health and Government Operations committees to convene a work group to evaluate the bill and other potential changes. The work group will determine if other actions are needed to resolve issues raised by the auditor.
Moore, in a three-page letter, said he agreed that changes needed to be made to how major information technology projects are overseen. But while the bills are 'well-intended,' he said 'many of its provisions recycle ineffective policies from the past, mirror reforms that are already underway or are overly prescriptive.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Schiraldi out at Department of Juvenile Services, Gov. Wes Moore says
A new acting secretary will take over Maryland's Department of Juvenile Services, replacing the embattled Vincent Schiraldi, Gov. Wes Moore said in a news release late Monday. Betsy Fox Tolentino will assume the post beginning Wednesday, according to the release from the governor's office. Schiraldi had served as secretary of the department since 2023. 'We knew when we took office that the Department of Juveniles Services was one of the most troubled in all of State government. We need to continue to move fast and diligently in order to turn it around,' Moore said in a statement Monday. Tolentino comes to the government from the nonprofit The Roca Impact Institute, where she worked as the managing director of juvenile and young adult justice initiatives. She previously served the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services' Deputy Secretary of Community Operations, the statement said. 'I am thankful for Secretary Schiraldi's service to Maryland while leading an organization that shapes the lives of our young people who need support. I wish him well in his next endeavors,' said Senate President Bill Ferguson in the release from the governor's office. Schiraldi, chosen by Moore to helm an understaffed and financially mismanaged agency as firearm possession and car theft charges among Maryland youth increased, was heralded by many juvenile justice advocates as an expert in his field and an exciting pick to head the department responsible for tamping down youth crime. But his rehabilitative philosophy rattled Republican lawmakers, law enforcement, state prosecutors and members of the public who believe the state's juvenile justice system lacks oversight and accountability for children who commit crimes. Before coming to Maryland, Schiraldi founded the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco and the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute, which focuses on reducing the use of incarceration in the U.S. He then served as director of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services in Washington, D.C., for five years before taking a post in New York City. 'Vinny Schiraldi brought decades of experience and innovative thinking to the task of running the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services,' Moore said in the statement. Schiraldi contended that he inherited a department riddled with problems when he was appointed secretary by Moore at the beginning of his term. According to Schiraldi, programs and services for kids in need atrophied under the previous administration after the agency returned nearly $10 million of its annual budget for the better part of a decade. When lawmakers expressed dismay that reform wasn't happening quickly enough, Schiraldi pleaded for patience. 'This is an oil tanker, not a speed boat,' Schiraldi said of the Department of Juvenile Services. Maryland's senate Republicans applauded the shake-up Monday, saying Schiraldi's outsting was 'long overdue.' 'He presided over widespread failures: violent juveniles released with no real supervision, repeated contract mismanagement, dangerous missteps in ankle monitoring, and frontline staff left to fend for themselves,' said Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey in a statement. 'But just as damaging was his refusal to work with anyone. Law enforcement, state's attorneys, local leaders, legislators all lost confidence in his leadership.' Have a news tip? Contact Racquel Bazos at rbazos@ 443-813-0770 or on X as @rzbworks.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Acting Department of Juvenile Services secretary appointed after Vincent Schiraldi's departure
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore appointed an acting secretary of the Department of Juvenile Services after calls for the resignation of the previous secretary, Vincent Schiraldi. Betsy Fox Tolentino, who has 18 years of experience in criminal and juvenile justice advocacy, policy development, and building systems, will be the department's new secretary, according to the governor's office. The state has not said why Schiraldi is no longer the secretary of the Department of Juvenile Services. "Vinny Schiraldi brought decades of experience and innovative thinking to the task of running the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services," said Gov. Moore. "He put immense energy and effort into his work and moved important new efforts forward — to include the award-winning Thrive Academy -- and we thank him for his service."
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
American Politics Only Pretends to Work
There is a pervasive feeling—rising up from the precarious working poor, through the illusory middle class, and now even brushing the edges of the elite—that something in America is broken. The carefully curated illusions of American life, which held just enough weight to seem real for much of my millennial lifetime, are beginning to collapse. These illusions were constructed in the shadow of post-Reagan neoliberalism, just as the rot began to eat away at the gains of the postwar economy. Poverty and racism have always made liberty and justice feel like empty promises for many, but for protected classes, the illusion could endure. So much so that by the time I reached college—coinciding with the first term of Barack Obama—it was fashionable to declare that we had entered a post-racial America. Now those delusions lie bloodied in the street. We have seen law-abiding citizens snatched off the street, a billionaire oligarch turned loose to deconstruct the civil service. Meanwhile, that chasm between those with more than enough and those with nothing keeps widening. If there was an 'Obama legacy,' then it's mostly vanished. The optics of progress have failed to mask its absence. On May 16, Maryland Governor Wes Moore—a Democrat, a Rhodes scholar, and the only Black governor in the country—sent a letter to the president of the Maryland State Senate, vetoing a bill passed by the state legislature that would have created a reparations commission to study the economic and social case for compensating Black Marylanders for the enduring harms of slavery and its legacy. The headlines suggested betrayal. 'Maryland Governor Vetoes Reparations Bill,' read The New York Times' headline. 'Gov. Moore vetoes bill creating a state commission to study reparations,' wrote The Baltimore Banner. But the governor's letter tells a more nuanced story. 'I strongly believe now is not the time for another study,' Moore wrote. 'Now is the time for continued action that delivers results for the people we serve.' The sentiment that a substantial body of research exists bears out. The evidence is already there. The impacts of slavery, redlining, racial violence, and economic exclusion have been documented in study after study by universities, think tanks, and government agencies alike. The racial wealth gap in America—which is a topic that does not want for robust news coverage or analysis—remains staggering: The average white family holds nearly 10 times the wealth of the average Black family. In cities like Baltimore and all across the country, formerly redlined neighborhoods remain poorer, sicker, and less resourced than their white counterparts. Economist Sandy Darity, the Brookings Institution, and the Federal Reserve have all produced rigorous economic models showing the effects of slavery and other racist programs on Black wealth and showing how reparative programs could substantially narrow these disparities—even lengthening the lives of Black Americans. Echoing these findings, The California Reparations Report proposed direct cash payments and broad institutional reforms—ranging from guaranteed access to health care and housing to tax-exempt status for reparations payments—as essential components of a comprehensive state-level strategy to repair the enduring economic and social harms of slavery and its afterlives. But here's the rub: The bill that Moore spiked was never actually about discovering new facts to lay alongside the vast mountain of already-obtained knowledge. Rather, it's a quintessentially American ritual. A performance of forward motion that, in reality, preserves the status quo: activity masquerading as achievement. We are not waiting for more data. We are waiting for the willpower of political elites to catch up to the facts we have already gathered about the state of the world. We are hoping that we might create a force strong enough to dissolve the lucrative web of mutual dependence that exists between politicians, their funders, and their funding recipients—an arrangement that allows the few to profit from the entrenched policies that impoverish the many. For much of my lifetime, the nation, like our tech devices, has operated like a machine engineered for planned obsolescence: appearing functional on the surface but designed to slowly degrade beneath the hood. Our dissatisfaction is tempered by the allure of a shiny new upgrade that promises new features each campaign cycle. Like our top-grossing movies, election cycles are reboots and franchises. That includes our politics. Our institutions don't just fail; they are built to delay, to degrade, to defer. We pretend they work, and when they don't, we hold another hearing, commission another report, launch another study, believe another is hardly the first to challenge these neglectful impulses. More than a decade ago, The Atlantic published Ta-Nehisi Coates's landmark essay 'The Case for Reparations.' It was not merely a manifesto but a meticulous historical excavation—from redlining in Chicago to the GI Bill's racist exclusions—that laid out in irrefutable detail how government policy, not just private prejudice, created Black disadvantage. It forced a national conversation. But again, the response was mostly talk. On June 1, however, Tulsa Mayor Monroe Nichols—who once opposed reparations—announced a historic local plan for survivors and descendants of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. The city would fund direct payments and long-term support programs. It is a rare instance where moral clarity translated into material commitment. But Tulsa is the exception, not the rule. This policy of forever kicking the can down the road in the name of respecting some phantasmal process is not unique to reparations. The same pattern plays out across the political spectrum: Universal basic income pilots have consistently shown that giving people money reduces poverty, homelessness, and even mental illness—yet most federal assistance remains conditional and insufficient. Restorative justice programs show lower recidivism than punitive sentences—particularly for youth—yet U.S. incarceration rates have remained the highest in the world since 2002. The information is known. The solutions exist. They are simply not acted upon. The political class often blames this inertia on partisan gridlock. But that too is an illusion—one as fragile as it is convenient. The apparent opposition between parties masks a deeper consensus: Both benefit from a system that rewards performative conflict over substantive change, ensuring that donor interests and institutional power remain undisturbed regardless of which party holds office. What has not changed since the 1990s is the sheer number of Americans who do not vote at all. In 1992, Joan Didion wrote in The New York Review that political apathy was a misdiagnosis: the real condition was disenchantment, a loss of faith that the system could deliver anything meaningful. And while raw turnout numbers have rebounded from the dismal 1990s, it remains the case that disaffection is a constant presence. I saw it firsthand while teaching an introductory sociology class in Washington, D.C., in the autumn of 2024. As expected in a presidential election year, every discussion of social issues circled back to politics. My students, who represented the population of their majority-Black, working-class university, were thoughtful and interested but wary. One student offered the familiar argument: that nonvoters had only themselves to blame; they are uninformed and unengaged. But an older Black woman in the class cut in. She worked with unhoused Washingtonians who, she said, don't see much difference between life under either party. And how could they? Their material circumstances have not changed. In 2024, the Democratic Party—once the party of labor—ran its campaign flanked by billionaires and Bush-era Republicans. While Donald Trump performed populism in a McDonald's, Kamala Harris held fundraisers with Mark Cuban and the Cheneys. Campaigns are fought on vibes and not policy. While Kamala Harris had a 'Brat Summer,' Trump, a Manhattan-made real estate developer, played to rural crowds. Their policy disagreements and, especially, their pro-war consensus on foreign policy and neoliberal economics are rarely discussed. One party cosplays populism, and the other cosplays credibility. All that has shifted since the '90s is which party plays which role. What has changed since the Clinton era is not political substance but political spectacle. Social media has democratized access to information and sharpened our ability to see the rupture between what is promised and what is real. There is now a generation fluent in disillusionment. The Democratic National Committee itself has become a case study in illusion maintenance: from undermining Bernie Sanders as the leading candidate in 2020 to burying debates, to pretending Joe Biden's cognitive decline is a fabrication rather than a crisis of leadership. When David Hogg—a Parkland school shooting survivor and one of five DNC vice chairs—challenged the party's refusal to reckon with younger, more progressive voters and threatened to primary incumbents, he wasn't breaking ranks; he was breaking the fourth wall. And now his sentence may be ousting. My generation has watched the lives promised to us slip away based on a political consensus we were not alive to agree upon, conceived by a club we've not been invited to join. While a cycle of progress and backlash has emerged on some social issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, neoliberal financial policies embraced by both major parties have left millennials unable to buy houses, afford kids, or even buy groceries without financing them through buy-now-pay-later apps like Klarna—which is now facing losses and pausing its IPO in part because we can't pay them back. Meanwhile, policies supporting deregulation of financial markets, tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, and austerity measures have persisted throughout our lifetimes. These are the policies that political elites keep recycling as 'solutions' to our problems; meanwhile, these strategies only further widen income inequality and economic insecurity. Banking deregulation under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 paved the way for risky financial practices that led to the 2008 financial crisis. Similarly, trade agreements like NAFTA, which went into effect in 1994, prioritized corporate interests over labor protections, resulting in job losses and stagnant wages for American workers. Just a few weeks ago, the Senate, by bipartisan acclamation, passed an industry-friendly crypto deregulation bill, the direct fruits of crypto donors drowning Washington in slush money. This is a deeply entrenched way of doing business, one that reflects a larger failure to adapt to changing economic realities and contribute to ongoing challenges faced by younger generations. We should think of Governor Moore's veto like this: He didn't reject reparations; he rejected this whole charade. And the culture is catching up. Even our consumer habits reflect the growing revolt against disposability. Across the country, citizens are fighting for 'right to repair' laws, demanding that tech companies let people fix their own devices rather than forcing them to buy replacements. Behind that demand is a deeper yearning—for durability, for agency, for something built to last. We should want the same from our politics. But our civic infrastructure is designed more for optics than policy action. Commissioned research is a dress rehearsal for a play that will never debut. A 25-hour 'filibuster' that blocked no bill is marketing for Senator Cory Booker's new book. Every moral breakthrough is deferred until the next election cycle. We have outsourced moral courage to process. Governor Moore's veto was a rare political moment that acknowledged what so many Americans now suspect: We are not in need of more evidence or rhetoric—we are in need of political will and action. We know how to fix what's broken. The question is whether we still have the courage to stop pretending and pick up the tools to repair it.
