Sen. Harbin’s bill to treat gold and silver as legal tender stalls after committee vote

Sen. Harbin presented a committee substitute to let Georgians hold gold and silver as legal tender and to move oversight for private bullion depositories from Title 50 into Title 10 under the securities commissioner, saying the change would make bullion-based payments voluntary and regulated by the securities office.

The bill sponsor, identified in the hearing as Sen. Harbin, told the committee the proposal (referenced in discussion as LLC 620490 s) would make bullion transactions function like currency at the state level: "If you buy it, there would not be sales tax because it would be currency," he said, and he added that ‘‘the capital gains at the state level would not apply’’ though federal taxes would remain. He said annual reporting would shift to the securities commissioner and that the agency would have roughly 12 months to adopt rules before an operational system could begin.

Committee members questioned whether the measure had a fiscal note on projected state revenue losses and whether shifting deposits into a private depository/payment system would affect local banks’ lending capacity. One member asked, "So do we have any fiscal note on this if we're gonna be giving up revenue to the state?" The sponsor responded that no fiscal note was provided for that revenue impact and suggested the measure could bring business to Georgia.

Members pressed practical concerns about fraud and consumer protection. The sponsor described a payments model tied to existing card rails: "The card can be swiped — this is a Mastercard card, so it has the guarantees," he said, and explained that app-based controls would let users freeze or unfreeze a card. A representative from the securities division told the committee the office could "open investigations," issue subpoenas and work with stakeholders to create rules to prevent harm.

Several legislators raised privacy and rulemaking concerns. One member said provisions limiting disclosure of account or transaction information gave him pause, calling privacy ‘‘an elusive concept’’ given the possibility of forced access to deposit boxes. Another urged that rulemaking—especially around privacy and compliance—might be a legislative responsibility rather than entirely delegated to an agency.

Members also flagged equity and access questions. A speaker noted that many households are unbanked or rely on brick-and-mortar services and asked how seniors and residents without digital access would use a card-and-app system; supporters said the program was voluntary and that financial literacy and education would be part of implementation planning.

The hearing included public input and constituent letters opposing the legislation; a committee member presenting the letters said the substitute lacked specifics on audit, tracking and compliance.

Toward the end of the session a committee member moved to pass the bill and to adopt an amendment carving out an exception to permit the securities commissioner to access records for lawful investigations. The committee took a voice/show-of-hands vote on the amendment and on the amended bill. After tallying, the sponsor announced, "It did not pass." The transcript records members expressing surprise and confusion about the outcome.

What’s next: The hearing concluded without passage; the committee did not adopt the amended bill during this meeting, and proponents noted the securities commissioner and other stakeholders would need to develop rule language and implementation details if the measure returns for further consideration.