To steelman the strategy for a moment, this could actually be very clever.

In Mexico, bills proposed by senators follow this procedure:

1) First reading in the Senate.
2) One member speaks briefly in favor, another against.
3) Senate votes whether to throw the bill out.

4) If it survives, the bill goes to a committee for study and analysis.
5) The committee returns a proposal to the senate for full debate.
6) Proposed legislation goes back and forth between amendment by committee and debate in the Senate until it is thrown out or approved.

If @IndiraKempis directly proposed bitcoin as legal tender, the bill would never make it past the first vote in step 3.

On the other hand, a pro-CBDC bill is very likely to reach the committee and debate stages, because the central bank and govt are already pursuing that course.

Crucially, the bill amends legal tender laws, with "financial inclusion" as the explicit goal.

This opens the door to discuss other solutions to financial inclusion using those laws, including bitcoin.

But such a debate can't happen until a relevant bill reaches this stage.

It seems like a risky move, but it isn't really.

A CBDC bill is inevitable at this point.

By preemptively bringing it to the Senate herself, Senator Kempis gains some control over the process, and earns a prominent place in the debates that follow.

How close am I, @Excellion?