Skip to content

Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Insights

  • About Us
  • Contributors
  • Resources
  • Presentations
  • Visit the Faegre Drinker website

Political Contribution Limitations Now Also Mandatory for Broker-Dealers

The SEC’s Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act), aka the Pay-to-Play Rule, was partially delayed until recently, when FINRA adopted a complementary Rule. Broker-dealers that engage in distribution or solicitation activities with a government entity on behalf of any investment adviser need to pay close attention to the rule changes. I have outlined the rules, penalties and new FINRA rule below.

Serious Consequences, Even for Modest Sums

In 2010, the SEC adopted Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) addressing pay-to-play practices by investment advisers (the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule), which in part prohibited SEC-registered investment advisers (and exempt reporting advisers) and their covered associates from providing, or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any person to solicit a government entity for investment advisory services on behalf of the investment adviser unless the “person” is a defined “regulated person” (such as FINRA member broker-dealer entity).  Rule 206(4)-5 has a de minimis exception that permits covered associates to make aggregate contributions of up to $350 per election (primary and general elections are counted separately) to an elected official or candidate for whom the covered associate is entitled to vote, and up to $150 per election to an elected official or candidate for whom the covered associate is not entitled to vote.  For investment advisers, failure to comply with the terms of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule can have very serious consequences, including fines and, more importantly, being unable to receive advisory fees from applicable clients for periods of up to two years from the date of a triggering political contribution (and potentially having to return applicable advisory money received since the date of the political contribution in question).  A number of firms have faced regulatory action in the last year for what might otherwise be fairly modest (often in the range of $500) and routine political contributions by members of their staffs, including some contributions made to unsuccessful candidates for office (for purposes of the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule and the new FINRA rules, it is the office being sought or held that is important, not whether a candidate is successful in the election).

FINRA’s Comparable Rules

On August 20, 2017, rules that are highly similar and complementary to the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule became effective for most FINRA member broker-dealers: FINRA Rules 2030 (Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities) and 4580 (Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities).  On September 29, 2017, the SEC issued an order to clarify that the same standards also apply to so-called FINRA-registered “Capital Acquisition Brokers.”

Rule 2030(a) prohibits a covered member from engaging in distribution or solicitation activities for compensation with a “government entity” on behalf of an investment adviser that provides or is seeking to provide investment advisory services to such government entity within two years after a contribution[i] to an official of the government entity is made by a covered FINRA member (if made or reimbursed directly by the FINRA member, there is no de minimis dollar  threshold) or a covered associate (including a person who becomes a covered associate within two years[ii] after the contribution is made).  An “official of a government entity” includes an incumbent, candidate or successful candidate for elective office of a state or local government entity[iii] if the office is directly or indirectly responsible for, or can potentially influence the outcome of, the hiring of an investment adviser or has authority to appoint any person who is directly or indirectly responsible for, or can influence the outcome of, the hiring of an investment adviser (such as the ability of, say a governor of a state, to appoint a member of a pension board that may then, in turn, be solicited to make an investment in a private fund managed by one of the broker-dealer’s clients).

Rule 2030(b) prohibits a covered member or covered associate from soliciting or coordinating (say by “bundling” the contributions of others into a single envelope to mail as one) any person or political action committee (PAC) to make any contribution to an official of a government entity in respect of which the covered member is engaging in, or seeking to engage in, distribution or solicitation activities on behalf of an investment adviser; or payment to a political party of a state or locality of a government entity with which the covered member is engaging in, or seeking to engage in, distribution or solicitation activities on behalf of an investment adviser.  Further, covered members and their covered associates are explicitly prohibited from doing anything indirectly that, if done directly, would result in a violation of the rule – for example, intentionally funneling payments through consultants, family members or affiliates.

Takeaway

Any broker-dealer that has not done so already is highly advised to, on an expedited basis, adjust its Written Supervisory Procedures to account for the rule changes and, if it engages in distribution or solicitation activities with a government entity on behalf of any investment adviser that provides or is seeking to provide investment advisory services to such government entity, implement procedures to ensure internal collection of appropriate data (under new Rule 4580) from its associated persons.

 

[i] See Rule 2030(g)(1) for definition.  FINRA does not consider a donation of time by an individual to be a contribution, provided the FINRA member has not solicited the individual’s efforts and the FINRA member’s resources, such as office space and telephones, are not used.  Similarly, FINRA would not consider a charitable donation made by a FINRA member to an organization that qualifies for an exemption from federal taxation under the Internal Revenue Code, at the request of an official of a government entity, to be a counted “contribution.”  There are also certain allowances for smaller political contributions that are promptly returned/refunded.

[ii] The “look back” applies to any person who becomes a covered associate, including a current employee who has been transferred or promoted to a position covered by the rule. A person becomes a “covered associate” for purposes of the rule’s “look back” provision at the time he or she is hired or promoted to a position that meets the definition of a “covered associate.” The two-year period is reduced to six months in the case of natural persons who made an applicable political contribution prior to becoming a FINRA member covered associate if, after becoming a covered associate, the natural person does not engage in, or seek to engage in, distribution or solicitation activities with a government entity on behalf of the FINRA member.  The prohibitions and “look back” will not be triggered by contributions made prior to August 20, 2017.

[iii] If the individual is a state or local official at the time a contribution is made, but is running for federal office (i.e. U.S. Senate or president), the limitations of the rule would also still apply.

The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.

Subscribe and Receive Alerts to New Articles

SUBSCRIBE
November 4, 2017
Written by: Broker-Dealer Law Blog
Category: Compliance, Conflicts of Interest, FINRA

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: The SEC’s 2017 Cybersecurity Alert and New Cyber Unit
Next Next post: Required Disclosures After the DOL Fiduciary Rule

Subscribe to Alerts

Recent Posts

  • Managing IRAs: Charging Different Fees for Different Investments
  • FINRA Is Conducting a Targeted Exam of “Crypto Assets”
  • Recent State Fiduciary and Best Interest Developments
  • Rollover Recommendations – Do the SEC and DOL Requirements Align?
  • Broker-Dealer Regulation & Litigation Digest – Summer 2022

Categories

  • 12b-1 Fees
  • 3270
  • 3280
  • 3290
  • Anti-Money Laundering
  • Arbitration
  • BD
  • Best Execution
  • Best Interest Contract Exemption
  • Best Interest Standard of Care
  • Business Continuity Planning
  • Churning
  • Class Certification
  • Compensation Issues
  • Compliance
  • Concurrent jurisdiction
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Congress
  • Covered class actions
  • Covered securities
  • Credit
  • Cryptocurrencies
  • Customer Due Diligence Rule
  • Customer Protection
  • Cybersecurity
  • Dark Pools
  • Data Integrity
  • DOL Fiduciary Rule
  • Elder Abuse
  • Enforcement
  • Event Study
  • Examination
  • Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETF”)
  • exemptions
  • Fair Pricing
  • Fees
  • Fiduciary
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Financial Services
  • FinCEN
  • FINRA
  • FINRA 2018 Annual Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter
  • FINRA 360
  • FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure 12204
  • FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure 13204
  • FINRA Notice 13-45
  • FINRA Regulatory Notice 16-25
  • FINRA Rule 12200
  • FINRA Rule 13200
  • FINRA Rule 2111
  • FINRA Rule 2165
  • FINRA Rule 2232
  • FINRA Rule 3310(c)
  • FINRA Rule 4210
  • FINRA Rule 4512
  • FINRA Summary Report
  • Fixed Income
  • Fraud
  • Goldman v. City of Reno, 747 F.3d 733(2014)
  • Goldman v. Golden Empire Schools Financing, 767 F.3d 210(2014)
  • IA
  • Impartial Conduct Standards
  • In the Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Respondent (AWC 2009020188101/January 25, 2012)
  • Initial Coin Offerings
  • Investment Recommendation
  • Investor
  • IRA
  • Liquidity
  • Manipulation
  • Margin
  • Market Access
  • Market Access Controls
  • Mortgage
  • Mutual Funds
  • New FINRA Rule
  • OCIE
  • Office of the Solicitor General
  • Options
  • Outside Activities
  • Outside Business Activities (“OBA”)
  • Policies and Procedures
  • Price Impact
  • Private Securities Transactions (“PST”)
  • Private Securities Transactions of an Associated Person”
  • Prohibited Transactions
  • Prudence
  • Quantitative Suitability
  • Reading Health v. JP Morgan, No. 16-4234 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)
  • Reasonable Fees
  • Recommendation
  • Regulation Best Interest
  • Regulation SHO
  • Regulatory Notice 18-13
  • Retirement Account
  • Risk
  • Rollovers
  • SEC
  • SEC 2018 National Exam Program Examination Priorities
  • SEC Reg BI
  • SEC RIA Interpretation
  • Securities Act of 1933
  • Securities Class Action
  • Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA)
  • Senior Safe Act
  • Seniors
  • Service Providers
  • Short Sales
  • Suitability
  • supervision
  • Supreme Court
  • Surveillance
  • Technology Governance
  • UBS v. Carilion Clinic, 706 F.3d 319(2013)
  • Uncategorized
  • Unit Investment Trusts (“UIT”)
  • Verification of Assets and Liabilities

archives

  • 2023
    • January 2023
  • 2022
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
  • 2021
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • October 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
  • 2020
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
  • 2019
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
  • 2018
    • December 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
  • 2017
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
  • About Us
  • Contributors
  • Resources
  • Presentations
  • Visit the Faegre Drinker website

© 2023 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Lawyer Advertising.
Privacy Policy

We use cookies to improve your experience with our website. By browsing our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies. For more information about how we use cookies, please review our privacy policy and cookie policy. OK
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT