Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Funds Investments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears Strategic Bitcoin Reserve bill; sponsors amend to remove pension language and motion to table later succeeds
Summary
Senate Bill 275 would permit certain long‑horizon public funds to invest a limited share of assets in Bitcoin under strict custody rules; sponsor removed pension-specific provisions in committee and later the measure was tabled following treasurer concerns about operational impact.
Senate Bill 275, the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act, would give selected New Mexico public funds the option — not the requirement — to invest a small percentage of assets in Bitcoin under custody rules intended to limit operational risk. Sponsor Senator Thornton said the measure is permissive, would apply to funds with long investment horizons and would include custody safeguards (for example, exchange-traded products or qualified custodians such as federally or state‑chartered banks).
The sponsor presented comparative context, saying other states are considering similar legislation and some pension funds nationally already hold Bitcoin positions. An expert who testified for the sponsor described Bitcoin as an inflation hedge and urged a limited allocation (example figures discussed ranged from 2–5%). Several committee members raised constitutional and fiduciary questions for PERA and for state trust funds. PERA and the State Investment Council were cited in the committee fiscal analysis as already having investment authority under existing law, which complicated the policy rationale for the bill.
During the hearing the sponsor offered and the committee accepted an amendment that struck language in Section 6 that would have explicitly included certain funds or boards; the change followed questions from PERA and ERB staff about constitutional and statutory authority. State Treasurer Laura Montoya testified that the proposal would meaningfully affect the treasurer’s office and that the office lacked budgeted capacity to implement the custody and tax-handling changes the bill contemplated.
After questions and discussion, committee members voted on a motion to table the bill; the motion carried by recorded vote, effectively pausing the bill for further work. The sponsor said he still supported the general policy aim of allowing limited exposure to Bitcoin for long-horizon funds but promised to return with revisions addressing constitutional and operational concerns.
No appropriation was included in the bill text; treasurer testimony stressed upfront operational costs and governance impacts that would require further legislative clarification before implementation.
