(Editor’s Note: Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter kindly consented to write the guest column for Sister Janet about urgent matters facing this session of the state legislature.)

In an effort to provide wide-ranging protection for the people of our state from deceptive business practices, I am sponsoring two bills of major importance to consumers in the 1973 General Assembly.

The legislation is aimed at protecting the public from the activities of unscrupulous business operators who have been attracted to Georgia in the past by inadequate consumer laws. The new laws will also help protect honest businessmen from unjust competition.

The first bill, entitled the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, outlaws deceptive sales schemes and unfair methods of competition. It is modeled on similar legislation already passed in 35 states.

The second bill calls for sweeping revision and consolidation of the state’s confusing credit and usury laws and would require uniform regulation of lending institutions. The code would provide a uniform ceiling on finance charges and require a standard explanation of credit charges.

These two laws are desperately needed because existing consumer protection laws in the state are not comprehensive and place too great a burden on the victim who is often too poor or too uneducated to protect himself and his family against high pressure promotions, deceptive sales techniques and viciously complicated contracts.

The success of these two bills in the legislature will depend on public support – which is urgently needed to provide the thrust necessary to insure enactment. Unfortunately, Georgia’s consumers have no powerful lobby and legislators frequently hear only from slick lobbyists for the giant retail and lending companies.

The Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act has been described as a “Little FTC bill” because its provisions are patterned after legislation creating the Federal Trade Commission. It would outlaw specific deceptive business practices, including improper advertising and other false representation.

Enforcement of the new regulations would come under the jurisdiction of the state attorney general. He would have the authority to solicit consumer complaints, conduct investigations, issue restraining orders and go into court to recover money for consumers who have suffered at the hands of unscrupulous operators. His office would serve as a clearinghouse for reports of violations. At the present time, Georgia has no state agency with the direct authority to represent consumers in litigation.

The credit code proposes to simplify, clarify and modernize present state laws governing consumer sales, consumer credit, small loans, usury and debt collections.

The code would require lenders to include in their finance charge all of the costs of the loan, including interest, service charges, carrying charges, loan fees and credit insurance. All finance charges would have to be explained in terms of simple interest – the annual “true” percentage rate.

The new rate structure would not result in any general rise in bank or retail store credit rates because competition will keep interest at its present levels. However, the flexibility of the proposed rate structure would permit retailers and banks to increase the number of loans to “high risk” borrowers.

The legislation requires lenders to provide a single agreement to be signed in a credit transaction. A requirement that terms be printed in eight point standard type would eliminate the “small print” often associated with shady credit agreements. All contracts would be required to include a “notice to consumer” advising borrowers of their rights.

The revised credit code would abolish the “holder in due course” provision of state law which now protects finance companies from claims arising from non-functioning goods. That doctrine currently enables the dealer to pass the note on to a finance company which has no responsibility to repair defective merchandise and can foreclose on the item if the customer withholds payment. The new law would make the “holder in due course” responsible for items in most transactions and consumers would withhold payment for shoddy merchandise.

Debtors in our state are daily subjected to harassment and abuse from debt collectors. The revised credit code would forbid lenders from using threats, coercion, false accusations, misleading representations, harassment or abuse. Also, the new law strictly stipulates that is a debt collector has used illegal methods, then the debt is nullified.