Encouraging the use of physical cash in transactions.
Summary
HCR6004 is a nonbinding concurrent resolution that encourages South Dakota residents to use physical cash whenever possible. The resolution states several reasons for promoting cash, including privacy from transaction tracking, lower costs for businesses due to avoided card-processing fees, keeping more money in-state, helping unbanked residents participate in the economy, and improving resilience during disasters or emergencies.
The resolution also encourages consumers to support businesses that offer discounts for cash payments and encourages businesses to provide such discounts. Because it is a resolution rather than a statutory bill, it does not create new legal requirements or amend existing law; instead, it expresses the Legislature’s view and urges voluntary behavior by citizens and businesses.
Impact
HCR6004 does not change state statutes, impose mandates, or regulate payment methods. Its practical effect is limited to a legislative statement of support for cash transactions and an encouragement for businesses to offer cash discounts. The resolution may be used as a policy signal in debates over payment choice, financial privacy, merchant fees, and access for unbanked consumers, but it has no direct legal force.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have mixed to somewhat favorable support in the House, where it passed committee and was adopted by the chamber, but it ultimately failed to gain concurrence in the Senate. That voting pattern suggests the idea had meaningful support but also notable opposition. The resolution’s themes of privacy, consumer choice, and support for unbanked residents likely resonated with supporters, while opponents may have viewed it as unnecessary, symbolic, or potentially at odds with broader trends toward electronic payments.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the policy and economic implications of encouraging cash over electronic payments. Supporters emphasize privacy, lower merchant fees, local retention of money, and access for people without bank accounts. Opponents may question whether the state should promote one payment method over others, whether cash discounts create administrative burdens, and whether the resolution implies criticism of card, mobile, or digital payment systems. The split votes, especially the Senate’s refusal to concur, indicate that these concerns were significant enough to block final adoption.