Cathy Brechtelsbauer often gives out flyers calling on voters to end payday loan "debt traps." The small squares showing an illustrated man standing in a bear trap spell it out: One lending measure on the ballot is real, while the other is a fake.

The South Dakota campaign to cap interest rates is relying on volunteers and church denominations across the state — not large TV advertising buys — to explain the difference to voters. But supporters worry that a competing constitutional amendment funded by a car title lender will confuse people.

"The payday lending industry is all about tricking consumers," said Steve Hildebrand, who is helping lead the rate cap push. "Their constitutional amendment is all about tricking voters."

Constitutional Amendment U, which is funded by Georgia-based Select Management Resources LLC, would let lenders charge any interest rate that a borrower agrees to in writing. Loans without written agreements would be capped at 18 percent annually.

Instead, activists say people who want to curb rates should vote in favor of Initiated Measure 21, which would limit interest charged by businesses such as payday, auto title and installment lenders licensed in South Dakota to 36 percent annually.

Lenders argue that the cap would destroy the industry in South Dakota, while measure supporters say people have options for help other than a snare engineered to profit off the poor.

It's an added wrinkle to the campaign. Organizers have to train supporters to vote for one measure with a bureaucratic name and against another with an equally inscrutable title.

Brechtelsbauer said she's heard of several cases where people voted in ways they didn't intend, only to realize it later.

"It's very frustrating, and so we hope more people will be getting out the word," she said.

Select Management Resources CEO Rod Aycox hasn't returned 16 months of telephone messages from The Associated Press. A company attorney hasn't answered telephone calls or returned emails and voicemails from the AP.

Seeing the two measures confused 59-year-old Anne Sirovy, who ended up voting in favor of both while recently casting an absentee ballot in Sioux Falls.

The Renner resident favored the 36 percent rate cap, and even signed a petition to get it on the ballot. But, in the end, Sirovy didn't pay much attention and voted for Amendment U because she didn't think it mattered.

"They really both should not have been on there because it is confusing," Sirovy said.

There are indications that rate cap activists are in a stronger position than their foes. A KELO-TV poll found that 58 percent of respondents support Initiated Measure 21, with 22 percent against and 20 percent undecided. Forty-nine percent of respondents opposed Amendment U, while 24 percent supported it and 27 percent were undecided.

The poll of 400 registered South Dakota voters was conducted Oct. 18-20 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Initiated Measure 21 supporters are at a severe fundraising disadvantage, though they have made a small radio ad buy. In contrast, it appears that Select Management Resources is preparing for a big play to end the campaign.

The company, which has at least nine locations in South Dakota under the name North American Title Loans Inc., made a contribution of $400,000 reported Tuesday to Give Us Credit South Dakota, a group that's opposing Initiated Measure 21.

Federal Communications Commission records show that Give Us Credit South Dakota is airing more than 120 ad spots across KELO-TV, KSFY-TV and KDLT-TV. The committee has also sponsored mail advertising attacking the rate cap as a liberal-backed assault on freedom.

Select Management Resources has pumped more than $3 million total into the two ballot measure campaigns since last year, including nearly $1.2 million to Give Us Credit South Dakota and almost $1.9 million to an organization backing Amendment U.

The heads of both groups haven't returned emails and telephone messages from the AP.

Amendment U appears to be drawn from a playbook used in a 2012 election fight over interest rates in Missouri.

During an unsuccessful campaign to get a 36 percent rate cap on the ballot, two competing initiatives appeared, including one that would have capped annual interest rates at 13.99 percent unless a different agreement was made in writing.

The proposals were submitted by Jefferson City lobbyist Jewell Patek, who said he couldn't disclose the law firm that sent the matter to him because of attorney-client privilege.

"We just file the paperwork," he said.