How Could The New Debt Settlement Law Help Consumers?

After the recent interdiction against the country’s most extensive debt settlement negotiation firm set in motion by the Oregon Attorney General – officially banning the Credit Solutions of America Corporation from soliciting additional business within the state for three years and further disallowing CSA representatives from finishing any current transactions they may have (half heartedly, as it turns out) been in the process of organizing – the social and political outcry for a decisive debt settlement law girding formal parameters and corporate protocols for proper settlement counselor behavior seems to be gaining steam, and some form of federal legislation shall undoubtedly be enacted over the forthcoming Congressional term.

At this moment, the smart money from those wired into the United States political world places bets on the bill introduced by Democrats Claire McCaskill, junior Senator from Missouri, and the famed rabble rouser and New York Senatorial legend Charley Schumer known at the moment as the Debt Settlement Consumer Protection Act. Purportedly constructed to insulate the millions of United States borrowers grasping at straws for any conceivable answer to their credit card debt woes, the debt settlement law should provide greater clarification of the surrounding risks and rewards as well as prevent some of the more insidious financial liabilities that so many of these companies contractually include as common practice. As perhaps the most meaningful aspect of the proposed legislation, federal law enforcement authorities would be granted substantially more influence and capacity for prosecution of the malfeasant companies who have too long shirked their responsibilities and duties for consumer protection (while, somehow, still never missing the chance to exploit the profitability of their professional role).

“This legislation will crack down on predatory settlement programs that are preying on those already in dire financial situations,” Schumer opined, and there’s certainly some truth to the notion that the industry would be best served by a stringent course of regulations to align the standard codes of practice observed by the more respected settlement counselors. Now that the lazy excuse that passes for journalistic rigor among modern news outlets has taken such extraordinary efforts to publicize the failings of our worst debt relief providers, a truly consequential variant of debt settlement law might well be considered an overall asset to the larger spread of the methodology to the folks that truly require professional assistance with consumer finance repair.

It may be true that the quickly multiplying enterprises who offer a seemingly ouch-less approach towards remuneration of rightfully held loan balances have poisoned the reputation of the many legitimate firms employing competent and caring negotiators. If the working men and women of our nation have been genuinely trying the best that they could to take charge of debt loads, there should be nothing more important to the consumer finance field than regaining the trust of interest stricken men and women who depend upon the help of trained and trustworthy soldiers of debt management. Should this require a decent and fair debt settlement law correctly and thoughtfully instituted to order the guidelines of all applicable firms, authorities within the industry organizations and designated heads of the competing debt relief firms must honor the wishes of government and do all that they can to restore the faith of the public within the debt settlement negotiation alternative.