OPINION:
A nationwide legislative trend has emerged, heralded as a return to “sound money” and popularized by economic uncertainty and inflation frustration.
Citing Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, dozens of states have considered bills designed to provide alternatives to the federal monetary system by recognizing gold and silver as legal tender. To the sound money purist, this sounds like a long-awaited revolution.
Texas and Florida are two states that have signed these policies into law, though both await full implementation. A closer look at the fine print reveals why similar proposals have failed in other states.
Behind triumphant announcements, Florida’s HB 999 and Texas’ HB 1056 carry structural poison pills. Instead of liberating physical gold from the shackles of fiat currency, these bills effectively kick physical gold to the curb.
By installing rigid restrictions on physical gold and expanding state bureaucracy, Florida and Texas have built “digital-first” state gold systems that actively suppress real-world, gold-you-can-hold precious metals commerce, threatening to set back the sound money movement just as it is making a multigenerational comeback.
Florida: The ’accidental’ elimination of the bullion market
Florida’s approach to sound money is a master class in legislative self-sabotage. In its eagerness to prevent counterfeiting, the state Legislature included a strict no-go clause regarding markings. The law mandates that a gold piece may bear only its weight, purity and the name or symbol of a mint or refiner.
It prohibits gold with “other information or design” from being part of the legal tender club.
The result is that Florida has excluded the vast majority of physical gold products currently traded in the country. Popular pieces such as PAMP Suisse bars, Valcambi CombiBars, APMEX rounds and Goldbacks contain design elements that serve as authenticating and anti-counterfeiting devices. Ironically, these make them ineligible.
By enacting a law that allows only minimally refined, featureless bars to be exchanged as legal tender, Florida did not renew the gold standard; it crippled it.
Texas: The anti-free-market bureaucracy
If Florida’s poison pill is regulatory blindness, Texas’ is outright state capitalism. Texas is often praised for building the nation’s first state gold depository managed under the Texas comptroller.
Yet the expansion of this state agency (and its mission creep to mint state money, currently under review in U.S. District Court) represents a departure from free market principles. The private sector provides the same services, driven by market demand and competition.
Providers such as Brink’s and Loomis, alongside countless private vaulting companies, long provided institutional security, Lloyd’s of London-backed insurance and independent auditing.
By providing gold sales and services to the public, Texas did not support the free market. It invaded it as an unfair competitor. Backed by the prestige of the Lone Star State, it has a taxpayer-subsidized advantage that private vaults cannot match.
The objective is to shift privately held gold into the custody of a state-designated provider and to conduct gold transactions through state-selected payment systems. Texas has engineered the blueprint for a state monopoly that could ultimately stifle private innovation, skew markets and shift financial risks back to taxpayers.
The ’digital-first’ betrayal of physical gold
When the sound money movement began to surge with Utah’s adoption of the first Legal Tender Act in 2011, the dream became tangible. Americans could hold and exchange real gold and silver, preserving purchasing power outside the fiat system and eliminating reliance on electronic platforms.
Florida and Texas have inverted this dream. Both have become “digital-first” gold states, advancing their government gold programs and creating “transactional gold” held in the government system. This is not a return to sound money; it is the creation of something that looks a lot like central state digital currency.
Falling short
The promise of sound money was never simply to digitize gold. It was to restore the use of tangible assets that people could own directly, free from the vulnerabilities of centralized financial systems.
These bills fall disastrously short of the sound money mission. If spending gold requires a vault, an electronic ledger, a smartphone and a state-administered platform, the user has not escaped the weaknesses of the modern financial system. They have simply replaced one master with another.
By sidelining physical precious metals and elevating government-centered digital systems, both states stand out not as models but as cautionary examples: When the government promises to make gold money again, it may simply turn it into another electronic financial instrument of the state.
• Kim Coleman is a co-founder of the Sound Money Trade Association, director of strategic relations for Goldback Inc. and a political science adjunct.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.