To enact sections 113.81, 113.82, 113.83, 113.84, 113.85, 113.86, 113.87, 113.88, 113.89, and 113.90 of the Revised Code to establish a transactional currency based on gold and silver held in a bullion depository approved by the treasurer of state.
HB206 would create a new state-administered “transactional currency” backed by gold and silver held in an approved bullion depository. The bill directs the Ohio treasurer of state to establish the system, define the relevant terms, and either operate it directly or contract with a private vendor. Under the proposal, the treasurer would hold specie and bullion in trust, issue transactional currency in units tied to exact fractional troy ounces of precious metal, and ensure that those units can be transferred electronically and used as legal tender for payment of debt.
The bill also sets up a redemption framework. A person or state could buy transactional currency by paying the treasurer, who would then purchase the corresponding precious metal and place it in a pooled depository account, or could designate existing bullion already held in an approved depository. Holders could redeem the currency either for U.S. dollars or for the underlying gold or silver, subject to fees. The treasurer is authorized to set fees to cover administrative costs and merchant use, and to adopt rules governing security, fraud prevention, and confidentiality of depository-account information.
If enacted, HB206 would add a new chapter-like framework to the Revised Code governing state-issued precious-metal-backed currency and bullion depository operations. It would expand the treasurer of state’s duties to include custody, valuation, issuance, redemption, and rulemaking for a gold- and silver-based transactional currency, while also creating statutory protections that keep the underlying funds, bullion, and redemption proceeds outside the state treasury and unavailable for legislative appropriation. The bill would affect the treasurer’s office, any approved bullion depository or private vendor, and individuals or states choosing to hold or transact in the new currency.
The bill appears to have been introduced with support from a group of sponsors and cosponsors, suggesting interest in the concept of a precious-metal-backed payment system. However, there is no committee transcript or recorded vote history in the provided material, so the broader legislative sentiment cannot be measured from debate or floor action. Based on the text alone, the proposal reflects a pro-gold-and-silver, alternative-currency approach rather than a contested policy with documented public deliberation in this record.
The main policy questions raised by the bill are operational and constitutional rather than partisan in the available record. Potential points of contention include whether the state should issue or facilitate a currency backed by bullion, whether the treasurer should be allowed to contract with private vendors and prefer in-state vendors, how secure and practical the depository system would be, and how the currency would function as legal tender alongside U.S. dollars. Another likely issue is the bill’s treatment of the bullion and related funds as outside the state treasury and beyond appropriation, which could draw scrutiny over fiscal control and oversight. No specific objections or supporters are documented in the provided committee materials.