DPC in The Detroit News: Small-dollar loans aren't predatory -- they're a lifeline

The Domestic Policy Caucus penned an op-ed, "Small-dollar loans aren't predatory -- they're a lifeline," for The Detroit News.

In part, DPC wrote, "The benefits of small-dollar loans from non-bank institutions are often overlooked by people who have no personal experience with them."

Read the full op-ed here.

DPC Applauds Court Ruling Against North Dakota Legislature’s Attempted 340B Abuse

The Domestic Policy Caucus applauds an April 27 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Daniel M. Traynor that quashes the North Dakota Legislature’s attempt, through the recently passed House Bill 1473, to “facilitate and sanction the graft” associated with abuse of the 340B drug pricing program.

The 340B program, established in 1992, compels prescription drug manufacturers to provide deeply discounted drugs to certain clinics and hospitals, with the understanding that the clinics and hospitals will either pass along the saving to patients, or charge insurers the full price and then use the profits to provide additional charity care. Participating in the 340B program is required for manufacturers who want to participate in federal Medicaid and Medicare programs.

With no restrictions on how 340B funds are used and few reporting requirements, many hospital systems are abusing the program and using it to amass huge profits at the expense of patients, employers, unions, and taxpayers.

In a sharply worded summary judgment in favor of AbbVie Inc. and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Judge Traynor agreed with pharmaceutical companies that while the law purports to “protect the underdogs,” it illegally interferes with the federal drug-pricing regime. 

Judge Traynor said, “The states defending these laws say those populations [poor, underinsured, vulnerable] are the ones hurt when pharmaceutical companies put certain restrictions on delivery under the 340B program… However, a program meant to help American poor is being abused to provide a windfall to hospital conglomerates and participating pharmacies… North Dakota’s law attempts to facilitate and sanction the graft by interfering with an area of federal law… Here is what is really going on: a coordinated collusion between the state’s covered entities and contract pharmacies to exploit Congress’ inattention to a federal program. As a result, pharmacies and third-party administrators pocket billions of dollars each year… Manufacturers should [not] be fleeced by enterprising states and hospital conglomerates that wield power in legislative lobbies… Ultimately, it’s the patients who suffer… The 340B drug pricing program was meant to help the needy who require medication to live. H.B. 1473 benefits hospital conglomerates and Joe Paycheck sees no difference in the price of his meds… H.B. 1473 is an infringement on federal programs masquerading as state governance.”

Read the full LAW360 article about the decision here.

The court ruling represents an excellent example of the checks and balances that our nation’s founders envisioned. In this case, a federal judge has quashed overreach by the rogue North Dakota legislature, to the benefit of American patients, employers, unions, and taxpayers.

The Domestic Policy Caucus applauds Judge Traynor’s judgment.

DPC in Duluth (Minn.) News Tribune: Minnesota, Wisconsin consumers deserve more, not fewer, credit options

From the column: “Americans with modest means deserve the same range of financial tools as those who are better off… Any credit-restriction proposal that comes up in Minnesota or Wisconsin should be given no consideration.”

Read the full column here.

DPC Offers “Freedom to Borrow” Editorial Cartoon

Imposing interest rate caps on loans and restricting the credit options available to consumers are ill-conceived policies that do not achieve their desired outcome. The Domestic Policy Caucus is working to educate policymakers and stakeholders about this fact. 

Such policies unfairly target short-term, small-dollar loans that many disenfranchised and disadvantaged people use. People with subprime credit scores or “underbanked” or “unbanked” people often rely on these types of loans and other creative financing solutions to access credit for car repairs, to pay rent, or in a medical emergency.

Credit rate caps reduce purchasing power, not by making credit cheaper for everyone, but by limiting access to credit for many consumers, especially those with lower incomes or credit scores who need it most.

Without credit options, borrowers may turn to more damaging alternatives: overdrawing accounts, accumulating credit card debt they cannot repay, declaring bankruptcy, or seeking out unregulated, black-market lenders with far harsher terms.

Americans with modest means deserve the same range of financial tools as those who are better off. Preserving access to a variety of credit options is essential—not only to help families weather short-term challenges but also to give them a pathway toward greater financial stability and opportunity. 

To drive home these points, the Domestic Policy Caucus has produced this editorial cartoon and encourages anyone and everyone to download and use it with newspaper columns, blogs, social media posts, and so on.

DPC Discusses Freedom to Borrow on The Jack Tomczak Show on WWTC Radio

Domestic Policy Caucus Secretary/Treasurer Kent Kaiser, Ph.D., substitute-hosted the Jack Tomczak Show on WWTC AM1280 The Patriot radio in the Twin Cities, with guest Patrick Brenner, President and CEO of the Southwest Public Policy Institute. 

Kaiser and Brenner discussed efforts to restrict access to credit and impinge on the freedom to borrow.

Listen below.

DPC Provides Testimony in Opposition to Minnesota House File 3609

The Domestic Policy Caucus provided written testimony in opposition to Minnesota House File 3609, which would cement the current, flawed 340B policy in the state, for the March 18, 2026, meeting of the House Health Finance & Policy Committee.

In part, DPC wrote, “Current 340B legislation has a sunset clause extending to the middle of 2027. There is no need to act on 340B in Minnesota before next year… Proposing H.F. 3609 at this time is premature… At a time when Minnesota is mired in a regime of fraud and abuse, it is not appropriate to push forward with another massive program that lacks transparency and reeks of abuse. If you move forward with H.F. 3609, then you are voting to be part of the problem… The sunset provision in the current law is an opportunity. Just like sunsets in nature give you the opportunity to reflect on the day and look forward to a better day tomorrow, a sunset provision like the one in the current law regarding 340B gives you the opportunity to look reflect on how the law has worked and where it needs reform and to make changes before the sunset comes in the summer of 2027 so that 340B serves Minnesotans in the best way possible.”

Read the complete testimony here.

DPC Provides Testimony in Opposition to Minnesota Senate File 3769

Domestic Policy Caucus Secretary/Treasurer Kent Kaiser, Ph.D., provided testimony at the March 3, 2026, meeting of the Minnesota Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee.

In part, DPC testified, "The current 340B law has a sunset clause extending to the middle of 2027. So, there is no need to act on 340B in Minnesota before next session. The sunset provision provides an opportunity to study the 340B track record in Minnesota and get it right going forward—not to rush into cementing a flawed program into place... Please oppose S.F. 3769 and use this year and a half before the current law sunsets to get 340B right in Minnesota."

Read the full testimony here.

DPC Provides Further Testimony on Oregon House Bill 4116, DIDMCA Opt-Out

Domestic Policy Caucus Secretary/Treasurer Kent Kaiser, Ph.D., provided further testimony on Oregon House Bill 4116—this, before the Senate Committee on Labor and Business, on February 23, having testified earlier this month before the House Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee.

DPC testified:

According to the Oregon State Treasury:

• Nearly 17% of Oregonians have non-prime credit scores.

• About 37% of Oregonians say they couldn’t cover a $400 emergency expense.

These are among the consumers who would be harmed by House Bill 4116, and you’d be pushing them into situations where they might gravitate toward desperate, maybe black market, options such as loan sharks. And many will choose black market options because they don’t have items to sell, which is one option that the bill’s proponents have often suggested. Others will choose the black market over the awkwardness of asking a family member or friend for short-term emergency loans, which is the other option that proponents of the bill have naively suggested.

If you are inclined to support this bill, please think about this: How many items do you personally own that you could sell for $400 quickly in an emergency? What about when a second or third emergency comes up? What would you sell then? Now, set aside your privilege and think about someone who is far less well off than you are—someone who doesn’t have much stuff to sell or much stuff that’s even worth $400 or acquaintances with enough money to buy the stuff. The prospect of coming up with $400 for an emergency expense is pretty bleak.

Now, if you are inclined to support his bill, please think about a 24-year-old coming up a little short on the monthly rent. He might turn to his mother today and say, “Hey, ma, could you loan me $100 to cover the rent? I can pay ya back on Friday.” And she says, “Sure, son, but you have to pay me a dollar a day for the loan.” Of course, the kid will take the deal—it’s a great deal. Indeed, this is the ideal scenario according to proponents of House Bill 4116. It’s also a 365% APR in an unregulated context that doesn’t help the kid build his credit score. And remember, many of the people in a similar situation come from families where no one has $100 to loan to a needy kid.

You wouldn’t send someone to the Alvord Desert without a water bottle. You shouldn’t banish poor Oregonians to a veritable credit desert with no way to purchase what they need to survive, either.

Please oppose House Bill 4116.

DPC Testifies Against Oregon House Bill 4116, DIDMCA Opt-Out

Domestic Policy Caucus Secretary/Treasurer Kent Kaiser, Ph.D., testified before the Oregon House Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee on February 3 to oppose House Bill 4116, which would opt the state of Oregon out of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA).

In part, Kaiser testified, “You should understand this: The need for credit doesn’t disappear when credit options are taken away. What does disappear when you take away credit options is affordability and purchasing power. Without purchasing power, affordability is irrelevant… You wouldn’t send someone to the Alvord Desert without a water bottle. You shouldn’t banish poor Oregonians to a veritable credit desert with no way to purchase what they need to survive, either.”

Read the full testimony here.

DPC Produces Short (:90) Video on the Consumer Benefits of DIDMCA

Thanks to a unanimous 1978 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, banks holding a “national charter” were to be governed by the interest rate caps of the states in which they were based, instead of the state in which the consumers lived. The nationally chartered banks started offering very attractive terms across state lines.

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Congress passed a bill called the Depository Institutions and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA), which allowed banks chartered under state law to have the same right to “export” their home-state interest rates as the national banks did.

The result of DIDMCA’s passage was vibrant competition among all banks—nationally and state-chartered—to provide more and more attractive terms on credit and to provide more credit options as well as to provide credit to more and more people. This especially benefited millions of previously credit-deprived and underbanked customers who were brought out of the margins and into the mainstream credit community. This helped fuel the economic expansion of the 1980s and beyond.

Unfortunately, in passing DIDMCA, Congress included a provision that would allow state legislatures to opt out of the law. At first, several states opted out. Over time, all but Iowa rescinded their opt-out laws after seeing the benefits to consumers in the other states.

It sounds absurd, but lawmakers in various states are now thinking about opting out of DIDMCA and setting back the most economically vulnerable families 50 years. They often couch their opt-out schemes in terms of fairness and consumer protection (an attempt to keep higher-interest-rate consumer loan products from being offered in their states). In reality, their bills implode credit access for consumers and small businesses. They also place their state banks at a disadvantage compared to the massive, impersonal, nationally chartered banks, which are charging the highest fees and are exempt from state DIDMCA opt-outs.

To provide a quick primer on DIDMCA, the Domestic Policy Caucus (DPC) created this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPB9a9goz98

More information about the DPC Freedom to Borrow initiative is available at www.freedomtoborrow.org.