Committee opens hearing on transactional gold and silver; proponents and opponents clash, vote deferred

The Georgia Senate Banking Committee held an extended hearing on Senate Bill 424, a bill to recognize gold and silver as legal tender, authorize bullion depositories and create a commission and electronic-payment frameworks to permit fractional ownership and spending of precious metals. The committee did not vote on the measure and designated the item hearing-only, with plans to resume consideration on Tuesday.

Sponsor remarks described the proposal as a constitutional exercise under Article I, Section 10 and said the plan would be self-funded through user fees. ‘‘This would make [gold and silver] legal tender,’’ the sponsor said, and the measure would create a five-member bullion depository commission and an electronic-payment system enabling fractional transactions.

Testimony split sharply. Kim Coleman of Goldback, a Utah-based firm, urged rejection, telling the committee, ‘‘We oppose the state of Georgia entering the financial services arena and the precious metals retail market…when government becomes a participant in financial markets, it inevitably distorts them.’’ JP Cortez of the Sound Money Defense League likewise opposed the bill as unnecessary and warned supporters’ claims about tax benefits were misleading.

Industry witnesses including Jason Cousins of GlintPay said private platforms already provide gold-backed transaction services and argued state recognition could protect consumers and foster interoperability. ‘‘We’re the first company in the world to enable physical gold to be used in electronic payments,’’ Cousins said. Other expert witnesses, including a former federal oversight official, cautioned that the proposal could create consumer confusion by suggesting state-backed deposit-like protections where none exist.

Supporters—including Lori Bolton and national advocates who favor so-called 'sound money' measures—argued the bill would expand access to hard-asset savings and allow smaller purchases through fractionalization, helping lower-income households build inflation hedges without mandating state custody.

Committee members questioned storage arrangements, whether federal taxes would still apply, and whether the bill would expose taxpayers to liability; sponsors and the treasurer’s office said federal taxation stays in federal jurisdiction and that the bill as drafted seeks to avoid state liability and to contract storage to private vendors or other states if feasible.

Given the large number of signatories and conflicting testimony, the chair declared the session a hearing-only item and scheduled a follow-up on Tuesday so additional witnesses can be heard and committee members can pursue detailed questions.

The hearing record contains multiple pro and con filings and extensive oral testimony; the committee did not act on the bill today.