SD Governor Urges 20 States to Block Legislation That Bans…
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem has vetoed a bill that bans the use of cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, as money. The bill, masquerading as a Universal Commercial Code (UCC) guidelines update, also paves the way for central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Emphasizing that this bill is clearly “a threat to our freedom,” the governor urged 20 other states that are about to consider a similar bill to “block this legislation from passing.”
South Dakota’s Governor Vetoes Bill That ‘Bans’ Bitcoin and Other Cryptocurrencies for Use as Money
The government of the U.S. state of South Dakota announced Friday that Governor Kristi Noem has vetoed House Bill 1193 “which would infringe upon freedom in digital currency.” In her veto letter, the governor explained:
HB 1193 adopts a definition of ‘money’ to specifically exclude cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, as well as other digital assets. At the same time, these UCC revisions include central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) as money.
Noting that the bill was over 110 pages long, the governor explained in an interview with Fox News on Friday that it “was sold as an update to the guidelines of the UCC [Uniform Commercial Code], backed by all our financial institutions, our banks.”
She detailed: “As we started reading through it, we saw the section of the bill that changed the definition of currency. And essentially what it did was pave the way for a government-led CBDC, and it also banned any other form of cryptocurrency, bitcoin, or digital currency that existed.”
The governor stressed that for her, “it very clearly was a threat to our freedom,” noting that South Dakota is the first state to “really look at this bill and find out the truth of what’s in it.”
20 Other States Are About to Consider Similar Bill
Governor Noem further detailed: “We’ve got the same language coming to 20 other states. I believe it’s to pave the way for the federal government to control our currency and thus control people. It should be alarming to everyone, and it’s being sold as a UCC guideline update.”
The governor further cautioned that “if the government’s CBDC becomes the only legal digital currency,” then the government will “control how you spend that money and that takes away all of your freedom.” She tweeted Saturday:
More than 20 other states have the same UCC language in front of them. These bills change the definition of ‘money,’ make it harder to use cryptocurrency, and make it easier for the federal government to impose a CBDC. These states must block this legislation from passing.
In her veto letter, the governor expressed several concerns. Firstly, she said that “by expressly excluding cryptocurrencies as money, it would become more difficult to use cryptocurrency. By needlessly limiting this freedom, HB 1193 would put South Dakota citizens at a business disadvantage.”
Moreover, Noem said that “by defining ‘money’ in this proposed way, HB 1193 opens the door to the risk that the federal government could more easily adopt a CBDC, which then may become the only viable digital currency.”
The governor concluded, “At this moment in time, such a government-backed electronic currency has not been created,” emphasizing:
It would be imprudent to create regulations governing something that does not yet exist. More importantly, South Dakota should not open the door to a potential future overreach by the federal government.
What do you think about the UCC guidelines update attempting to ban cryptocurrency’s use as money and pave the way for government-led central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) as described by Governor Noem? Let us know in the comments section below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.