Two of North Dakota Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy’s recent television campaign ads targeting Republican challenger Rick Berg make assertions about Berg’s 26-year record as a North Dakota House member from Fargo. Berg has produced his own rebuttal ad. Here is an analysis: ———
POMEROY CLAIM: Berg ‘‘let banks share your information without permission.’’
TRUE OR FALSE?: True.
BACKGROUND: In 2001, Berg supported SB2191, which abolished a provision in state law that required banks and credit unions to get a customer’s written permission before the customer’s private financial information could be sold or shared with outside companies.
The new North Dakota law required that customers be notified, but financial institutions were not obliged to ask whether the customer saw, read or understood the notice. Banks claimed the bill was necessary to align state law with a recently approved federal law, which Pomeroy supported in Congress, and to allow them to continue providing ATM transactions and other services handled by outside companies.
Berg was chairman of the state House committee that had jurisdiction over the legislation. It was approved by the Legislature in 2001, but repealed by voters in a June 2002 referendum election — with 73 percent of the voters supporting repeal. ———
BERG CLAIM: ‘‘I led the fight to pass some of the toughest privacy laws in the country.’’
TRUE OR FALSE?: False.
BACKGROUND: Berg is referring to HB1478, a financial privacy bill he backed during the 2003 Legislature. The bill came in response to a law approved in 2001 by lawmakers — including Berg — that eliminated a requirement that banks and credit unions get customers’ written permission before sharing their financial information. The change was repealed by North Dakota voters in June 2002.
HB1478 was introduced in 2003, which made some changes to North Dakota’s privacy law while keeping the requirement for getting a customer’s written permission. Berg did not sponsor HB1478, and winning its approval wasn’t much of a fight: Only two of the North Dakota Legislature’s 141 members voted against it. ———
POMEROY CLAIM: Berg voted to ‘‘privatize Social Security.’’
TRUE OR FALSE?: False.
BACKGROUND: In 2005, Berg, who was the Republican majority leader in the North Dakota House, was the primary sponsor of HCR3056. The resolution supported allowing Social Security participants to set aside part of their payroll tax payments in private accounts.
The resolution, which was not binding, was intended to support President George W. Bush’s efforts to establish private investment accounts within the Social Security program. Bush’s plan did not convert Social Security into a private pension plan, and his limited agenda was so unpopular in the Republican-controlled Congress that legislation to implement the plan was never introduced.
Berg opposed a separate, Democratic-backed North Dakota House resolution in 2005 that asked the president and Congress ‘‘to forgo any effort to privatize any aspect of the federal Social Security system’’ and said minor adjustments could keep it running smoothly. ———
POMEROY CLAIM: Berg voted to ‘‘expand corporate farming.’’
TRUE OR FALSE?: True.
BACKGROUND: North Dakota law allows ‘‘family farm’’ corporations with as many as 15 related shareholders to own farms or ranches. During the 2003 Legislature, Berg voted for legislation to remove the requirement that family farm corporate shareholders be related. HB1396 was approved in the House but defeated in the Senate.
|
|
|
Two of North Dakota Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy’s recent television campaign ads targeting Republican challenger Rick Berg make assertions about Berg’s 26-year record as a North Dakota House member from Fargo. Berg has produced his own rebuttal ad. Here is an analysis: ———
POMEROY CLAIM: Berg ‘‘let banks share your information without permission.’’
TRUE OR FALSE?: True.
BACKGROUND: In 2001, Berg supported SB2191, which abolished a provision in state law that required banks and credit unions to get a customer’s written permission before the customer’s private financial information could be sold or shared with outside companies.
The new North Dakota law required that customers be notified, but financial institutions were not obliged to ask whether the customer saw, read or understood the notice. Banks claimed the bill was necessary to align state law with a recently approved federal law, which Pomeroy supported in Congress, and to allow them to continue providing ATM transactions and other services handled by outside companies.
Berg was chairman of the state House committee that had jurisdiction over the legislation. It was approved by the Legislature in 2001, but repealed by voters in a June 2002 referendum election — with 73 percent of the voters supporting repeal. ———
BERG CLAIM: ‘‘I led the fight to pass some of the toughest privacy laws in the country.’’
TRUE OR FALSE?: False.
BACKGROUND: Berg is referring to HB1478, a financial privacy bill he backed during the 2003 Legislature. The bill came in response to a law approved in 2001 by lawmakers — including Berg — that eliminated a requirement that banks and credit unions get customers’ written permission before sharing their financial information. The change was repealed by North Dakota voters in June 2002.
HB1478 was introduced in 2003, which made some changes to North Dakota’s privacy law while keeping the requirement for getting a customer’s written permission. Berg did not sponsor HB1478, and winning its approval wasn’t much of a fight: Only two of the North Dakota Legislature’s 141 members voted against it. ———
POMEROY CLAIM: Berg voted to ‘‘privatize Social Security.’’
TRUE OR FALSE?: False.
BACKGROUND: In 2005, Berg, who was the Republican majority leader in the North Dakota House, was the primary sponsor of HCR3056. The resolution supported allowing Social Security participants to set aside part of their payroll tax payments in private accounts.
The resolution, which was not binding, was intended to support President George W. Bush’s efforts to establish private investment accounts within the Social Security program. Bush’s plan did not convert Social Security into a private pension plan, and his limited agenda was so unpopular in the Republican-controlled Congress that legislation to implement the plan was never introduced.
Berg opposed a separate, Democratic-backed North Dakota House resolution in 2005 that asked the president and Congress ‘‘to forgo any effort to privatize any aspect of the federal Social Security system’’ and said minor adjustments could keep it running smoothly. ———
POMEROY CLAIM: Berg voted to ‘‘expand corporate farming.’’
TRUE OR FALSE?: True.
BACKGROUND: North Dakota law allows ‘‘family farm’’ corporations with as many as 15 related shareholders to own farms or ranches. During the 2003 Legislature, Berg voted for legislation to remove the requirement that family farm corporate shareholders be related. HB1396 was approved in the House but defeated in the Senate.
