On November 14, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued a notice asking for comment (by December 15) on its proposal to establish three rules designed to restrict pay-to-play practices.  The three rules include a pay-to-play prohibition (Rule 2390), a disclosure requirement (Rule 2271), and a recordkeeping requirement (Rule 4580).  The rules largely track the pay-to-play rule of the industry’s federal regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

If the SEC already has a rule, why is FINRA proposing one, and why now?  In short, because if it does not adopt a rule that satisfies the SEC, its members may not be allowed to be hired by investment advisers to solicit government business.

A little background is in order.  The part of the SEC rule that typically receives the most attention is the rule’s restrictions on providing investment advisory services following a contribution to a government official with responsibility for awarding contracts.  However, the SEC also recognized that there could be a pay-to-play concern if an investment adviser were to hire a third-party to solicit government business on its behalf if the third-party solicitor made political contributions to government officials.  To address this concern, the SEC provided that only certain persons were allowed to act as third party solicitors, including FINRA member broker-dealers—but only if FINRA were to adopt its own pay-to-play prohibition for its members.  The SEC has delayed compliance with this portion of the rule, allowing FINRA time to adopt a pay-to-play prohibition. Which FINRA is now seeking to do.

Like the SEC rule, FINRA’s pay-to-play prohibition would impose a two-year “time out” on compensated services following a non-de minimis political contribution by a “covered member” (any member, with some exceptions) and includes a similar prohibition on bundling contributions to candidates and parties.  Contributions of up to $350 per official per election (if the contributor is entitled to vote for the candidate) or up to $150 (if not) are considered de minimis and are allowable.  Primary and general elections are considered separate elections for the purpose of this rule.  FINRA’s rule would also include a “look back” of up to two years, requiring FINRA members to screen the political contributions of new hires.

The penalty provisions in the proposed rule would require a covered member to disgorge compensation if it violates the two-year restriction, potentially in addition to other sanctions.

The other two rules, to summarize, require the covered member to make certain disclosures to the government entities they solicit, and to maintain records that will allow FINRA to verify that covered members are complying with the new pay-to-play and disclosure rules.

Photo of Kevin Glandon Kevin Glandon

Insurance Advocacy for Policyholders

Kevin Glandon has helped policyholders recover over $1 billion for first party losses and third-party liabilities. Kevin has extensive experience with complex, multimillion-dollar property damage and business interruption claims arising out of catastrophic events, including damage to or destruction…

Insurance Advocacy for Policyholders

Kevin Glandon has helped policyholders recover over $1 billion for first party losses and third-party liabilities. Kevin has extensive experience with complex, multimillion-dollar property damage and business interruption claims arising out of catastrophic events, including damage to or destruction of commercial real estate, hotels, and manufacturing plants caused by hurricanes, floods, and fires–prominent risks potentially impacted by climate change. Kevin also has significant experience litigating and advising on coverage for environmental and products liability claims.

Kevin also assists clients with insurance recovery under cyber, fidelity and crime insurance, builder’s risk, and product recall policies, and has advised on impacts due to communicable disease and insurance-related due diligence in connection with major acquisitions. He advises clients regarding efficient and practical insurance strategies to prepare for and respond to first-party losses and third-party claims, and has worked extensively with forensic accountants, insurance brokers, and subject matter experts to achieve an effective, multidisciplinary approach to claim resolution. Kevin’s insurance-related experience spans the fields of commercial real estate, hospitality, manufacturing, government contracting, energy production, and professional sports.

Political Law

He also has experience advising clients in compliance and defense matters regarding political and election law, including the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s pay-to-play rules, the Federal Election Campaign Act, Senate and House ethics rules, and numerous state and local political and election laws and regulations.