House Bill 4592 presents an excellent opportunity to read between the lines.

The Senate Commerce Committee endorsed the measure 6-0 Wednesday, with five members not voting. The House approved 102-0 April 9.

Titled the “Retail Cash Payments Act,” the proposal would bar businesses from refusing cash on in-store purchases of less than $500. Further, businesses wouldn’t be able to post signs announcing cash isn’t accepted, although they would still be allowed to refuse bills worth more than $20. Violations would be petty offenses subject to fines – starting at $50 but no more than $5,000 per year – but the plan also creates 30-day windows to cure violations before incurring a fine.

There are exceptions, such as membership-only stores, self-service checkouts, sales between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., instances of “a sales system failure that temporarily prevents the processing of cash payments or a temporary insufficiency in cash on hand needed to provide change,” and merchants that both take prepaid cards and have an on-site mechanism for converting cash into an acceptable card.

The CapitolFax blog blurbed the bill Thursday with a quote from state Rep. Chris Belt, D-Swansea: “Cash is still a reality for millions of families, seniors and small-business owners. No one should feel excluded from participating in routine transactions simply because they choose to pay with cash.”

There’s another exception, but reading between the lines is required: governments. Because the statutory language clearly applies to businesses, government units obviously are excluded. But taking Belt’s quote at face value, that cash remains reality for millions and excluding people from routine transactions is wrong, it becomes fair to wonder why city hall would warrant different rules from corner stores.

Consumers have a choice. If I want a pack of gum but don’t have cash, I’ll shop at the market that takes my card. If neither takes plastic, my consequence is no gum. Conversely, constituents are limited. I can only buy a village vehicle sticker from one source, and the consequence of avoiding it is significantly more expensive than having no gum in my pocket.

Although most of the government websites I perused indicated a strong preference for electronic payments or mailed checks, there doesn’t appear to be a crisis of public bodies refusing cash. That’s likely because federal law stipulates American currency is “legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues” and a decent lawyer could argue a government can’t demand a payment and then set unreasonable collection terms.

Debates about the prudence of this legislative edict aside, the bill simply serves as a reminder of the value of considering proposals’ effects, intended or otherwise, and asking questions about who is subject to which rule and why.

Read the bill, yes, but sometimes answers lie beyond the language.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.