Maine Bill would redefine money to exclude Bitcoin, enable CBDCs
A bill before the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning would change the definition of “money” to exclude digital assets, such as Bitcoin, and pave the way for the introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
Rep. Stephen Moriarty’s (R-Portland) bill, LD 91, is a concept draft, so the details of the proposal will not be available to voters until he presents it to committee Wednesday morning.
The draft concept process is increasingly being used by lawmakers to avoid the standard transparency that comes with legislation that is normally tabled. But the bill suggests that LD 91, if passed, would adopt the 2022 national amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code as written by the Uniform Law Commission.
[RELATED: Beware the Digital Dollar and CBDCs…]
In the draft law for the UCC, there is a provision that would redefine money to exclude digital assets that are not offered by the government:
“Money” means a medium of exchange it is currently authorized or enacted by a domestic or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization, or pursuant to an agreement between two or more countries. The term does not include an electronic record that is a medium of exchange registered and transferable in a system that existed and operated for the medium of exchange before the medium of exchange was approved or adopted by the authorities. (Draft amendment in bold.)
While the legislation would exclude bitcoin and other digital assets from the legal definition of money, it would leave the door open to new digital assets offered by centralized governments.
International groups such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have openly speculated on using a so-called central bank digital currency (CBDC) to manage the international economy and facilitate social engineering.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has also published a paper exploring how CBDCs could be used in the US financial system.
When South Dakota lawmakers considered a similar proposal to enact the 2022 UCC amendments, conservative and libertarian members of the state’s Freedom Caucus opposed the measure because it was seen as enabling the adoption of CBDCs.
In a summary document explaining the purpose of the change, the Uniform Law Commission directly addresses Bitcoin:
“The current definition of “money” in the UCC is sufficient to include a virtual (fiat) currency authorized or adopted by a government, whether token-based or deposit account-based. But that definition may also include a medium of exchange in an electronic record (such as Bitcoin) that existed and operated as a medium of exchange before it was authorized or adopted as a medium of exchange by a government. However, the amendments exclude from “money” any such electronic record that existed and operated as a medium of exchange before it was authorized or adopted as a medium of exchange.”
In other words, the Uniform Law Commission seeks to use the UCC to prevent bitcoin adoption while paving the way for a government-controlled electronic cash system under a CBDC system.
One of the authors of the legislation, Steven Wiese, gave a video presentation regarding the proposal, portions of which were obtained by South Dakota lawmakers. In the video, Wiese expresses the intention of the proposed rules explicitly.
“Bitcoin will not be money because, although the definition provides electronic money … it says that an asset adopted by a government as its medium of exchange will not qualify as money under the UCC if the electronic asset, such as bitcoin, existed before it was adopted by the government, Wiese said.
“Because it exists, there will never be money for UCC purposes,” he said.
As for benefits to CBDCs from adopting the changes, Wiese seemed almost happy.
“Some central governments are talking about creating what’s called central bank digital currency, CBDC, it rolls off your tongue – it could be money,” he said.
Bitcoin has been scrutinized by authoritarian governments because it allows transactions of value without a third party – such as a government agency or a large financial institution.
Due to its resistance to censorship, bitcoin has been used by political dissidents, journalists and humanitarian organizations working under hostile governments.
Bitcoin, which has a predetermined and unchanging supply schedule, is seen by many as an alternative monetary system to the fiat US dollar system. While only 21 million bitcoins will exist, the total supply of US dollars is dependent on the whims of politicians, and there is no end in sight to the money printing.
If authoritarian regimes hate or fear bitcoin because of the freedom it gives users, they look favorably on CBDCs for exactly the opposite reasons.
Most versions of CBDCs often theorized by centralized governments will be programmable. With programmable money, a government can decide how much money a user is allowed to spend, what they are allowed to spend it on and where. For example, a CBDC can be programmed to limit a user’s consumption in relation to carbon emissions or consumption of red meat. Another often theorized programming option would be negative interest rates on checking and savings accounts, which would theoretically be used to encourage people to spend and stimulate the economy.
Freedom activists who have warned against the growing slide toward CBDCs fear that such technologies will one day be combined with a social credit system, like the one currently run by the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China, to control the behavior of citizens.
In addition to authoritarian governments, major financial institutions have also opposed bitcoin and other digital currencies in the past. According to Maine lobbyist records, Bank of America and the Maine Bankers Association both operate on LD 91.
Moriarity, the sponsor of LD 91, did not respond to a request for an interview.
This is news. If more information becomes available about the “concept” this story will be updated.