Star Metro - Georgia Rejects Big Government "Transactional Gold" Bill, Joining More Than a Dozen Other States

Senate Bill 424, the "government transactional gold boondoggle" bill, would have created a new Georgia government commission of bureaucrats to launch a commercial offering intended to compete against gold-related businesses in Georgia and beyond.

More specifically, SB 424 would have created a government-run gold depository, investment, and payment offering, even though these services are already widely available in the private sector.

Members of Georgia's House Banks and Banking Committee raised a multitude of concerns about the inoperability of SB 424, including increased liability to the state, the reality that selected vendors would weaponize government backing for competitive purposes against legally operating businesses, the potential of fraud, and the lack of any compelling interest for the state to transition from regulator to market participant.

Multiple members of the committee shared they had received hundreds of letters, emails, and/or phone calls from Georgia citizens opposing government intervention in the gold space. Rep. Kimberly Alexander even held up a 6-inch stack of physical letters she had received in opposition to SB 424.

Now that the Banks committee voted 11-4 to kill the bill, the Peach State joins Kansas, Arizona, West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, South Dakota, Idaho, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Michigan as states that have refused to launch this government scheme after facing a broad backlash from industry stakeholders, financial institutions, in-state grassroots activists, and sound money experts. Some of the criticisms raised are:

Gold Payment App Ploy to Obtain Special Government Blessing and Privilege - The public-private partnership concept is backed by individuals connected with gold payment apps. Even though these apps are already available for use in every state in the country, they desire the imprimatur of state government endorsement to help attract new customers and overcome their competition.

These bills direct state authorities to designate or establish a bullion depository, launch an electronic payment system, contract with select private entities, and promulgate rules to roll out the new government program.

Vendor Tax Favoritism, Scare Tactics to Pry Customers Away From Other Businesses - Promoters have made false and irresponsible marketing claims that customers of a state-selected vendor could evade federal capital gains taxes... or that members of the public could face confiscation of their precious metals if they did not patronize the state-partnered gold vendor.

New Burdensome Regulations - Some variations of these bills would also force hundreds of small businesses (e.g. coin shops, mints) to register as Money Services Businesses or seek some other license, subjecting them to new stringent regulatory and examination burdens for no discernable benefit while imposing elaborate bank-like signup processes on customers. State regulators would be forced to take responsibility for overseeing gold market and payment activities about which they lack experience or expertise.

Other reasons lawmakers have pushed back include:

Buying, Selling, Storing, and Transacting Gold Is Already Legal - Private services to buy, sell, store, and transact using gold/silver are already legal and widely available. There is no need to involve the state.

Lack of Industry Expertise & Understanding of Negative Business Impacts - These public-private partnership bills have been drafted with little apparent knowledge of precious metal depositories and dealers, the forms of precious metals that are available in the marketplace, and industry physical market practices for gold and silver coins, bars, and rounds. Most importantly, they have been drafted without sensitivity to the negative impact they would have on in-state businesses.

Absence of Public Demand - There is little to no demand among the public to pay taxes to the government in gold or silver, or for the government to become further involved in the purchase, use, sale, or storage of the metals. (It's usually quite the opposite... the public does not want the government involved with their gold.)

"Georgia lawmakers saw through the promoters' obfuscation and saw the SB 424 vendor proposal for what it actually was," said Jp Cortez, executive director of the Sound Money Defense League. "Lawmakers who mean well and who wish to advance sound money policy would be wise to return to first principles of limited government."

Despite these distractions, the Sound Money Defense League has successfully worked to advance good sound money bills this session removing taxes on precious metals, reaffirming gold and silver as Constitutional money, and strengthening gold and silver clause contracts.

Contact:

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sound Money Defense League

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

A.Bergeron--SMC