Re "One poll Alabama doesn't need" (Op-ed, Sept. 27):

Payday lending. It's a favorite target of well-meaning advocacy groups like Alabama Arise Citizens' Policy Project, whose analyst Stephen Stetson penned an op-ed article that The Star published last Sunday. His emphasis was on campaign contributions, and he spewed numbers that may have raised the eyebrows of some Sunday readers. Let's face it, no one likes to think that their elected representative is influenced by anything other than their vote and letters from their constituents.

The truth is, the contributions mentioned as coming from the short-term lending industry were negligible when compared to the overall cost of a congressional campaign and the cash coming in from some of Alabama's larger and more powerful industries.

But forget Capitol Hill for a moment. Instead, let's put the focus back on the people at the center of this ongoing debate — people who actually use short-term loans.

Stetson says clearly in his op-ed article that hard-working Alabamians "do need access to credit." No one questions the concept that a working mother should be able to borrow $200 to pay an unexpected doctor's bill, or that the guy delivering your paper should have access to a $100 loan to replace a blown-out tire so that he can go back to work tomorrow. The question has become how do we best provide short-term credit.

Stetson points to the states of Arkansas and Georgia as leaders on this issue. In recent years, both Georgia and Arkansas have put legislative or judicial restrictions on payday lenders that have completely put them out of business. So what has that meant for the people who used short-term loans?

No studies have been done yet in Arkansas, but the Federal Reserve took a thorough look at Georgia and reported that "the increase in bounced checks (where payday loans were banned) represents a potentially huge transfer from depositors to banks and credit unions. Banning payday loans did not save Georgian households $154 million per year, as the CRL (Center for Responsible Lending) projected, it cost them millions per year in returned check fees."

(As a side note, the CRL — mentioned in the Federal Reserve Study — is funded by credit unions that benefit greatly from overdraft charges. One of their representatives recently appeared at a summit about short-term credit held by Arise and others in Montgomery.)

So, when Stetson says "other states are managing fine" without the short-term lending industry, I would argue that studies prove otherwise. Which brings us back to the center of the debate: If we regulate the short-term lending industry out of business, what alternative do we offer to the people who use this service to avoid the more costly alternatives such as overdraft charges, late fees on bills and more?

So far, opponents of the industry haven't come up with a solution. And neither has the free market. The industry, however, has made an effort in Alabama to self-regulate and encourage customers to use the products wisely. Find out more at www.borrowsmartalabama.com. You'll also find on the Web site testimonials from customers about how short-term loans have helped them.

Stetson says himself that despite the debate between the industry and its opponents, it hasn't "prompted a public demand for change." So, if the public hasn't demanded change, if short-term credit is clearly needed, and if no alternatives exist, why is an organization that claims to be a voice for the people of Alabama beating this drum?

Charles Hunter is a spokesperson for Borrow Smart Alabama.