SEC proposes lifting two-year restriction tied to advisers’ political contributions
- The SEC has proposed the rescinding of its pay-to-play rule, which bans investment advisers from earning fees on government accounts for two years after a covered political donation.
- The “pay-to-play” addressed the risk that an investment adviser could effectively “pay” a government official through political contributions in order to “play” — or win — a role managing government money.
- Advisers, their employees and firms competing for public pension mandates are the main beneficiaries, since the SEC says existing antifraud and fiduciary rules already deter bribery.
- The plan is open for a 60-day comment period and is being proposed during a record year for corporate political spending.
The SEC’s Rule 206(4)-5, known as the “pay-to-play” rule, prohibits an investment adviser from getting paid by any governmental client for two years if the adviser or anyone covered by the rule has made a political contribution to any such official or candidate having the ability to influence the selection of the adviser. On September 3, the SEC suggested repealing the mentioned rule and related recordkeeping requirements.
If the proposal is successful, investment advisers and their staff members would benefit the most. Their firms could carry on with the management of government money for compensation without having to follow the rule of abstaining from engaging in any covered political donation for two years.
Who stands to gain if the rule disappears
According to the SEC, there are 16,434 investment advisers registered with the agency and approximately 1.11 million of their employees across those firms. As per the provisions of the existing regulation, the company with covered contribution may not be able to take the fees from a government agency for two years.
Among those likely to benefit most from the regulations are managers competing for the public sector business. Public pension funds, state retirement systems and public university endowments have large investment mandates and the purpose of the rule is to ensure that political contributions do not affect who wins that business.
The proposal would do away with the political-contribution-specific recordkeeping provisions that are included in the rule. But other provisions for protection will still be applied, such as anti-fraud provisions, fiduciary obligations, compliance requirements, and ethical codes. Also, anti-corruption and procurement laws at the federal, state, and local levels will still be applicable.
Employees may be subjected to fewer restrictions internally. The Commission states that some companies responded to the complexity of the regulation by prohibiting any political contribution instead of risking a possible violation.
The 15-year-old rule the SEC calls a “trap for the unwary”
The term “pay-to-play” applies to political donations which have an impact on public investment contracts. The proposal is also in line with a wider deregulatory trend that Cryptopolitan reported on in April when SEC Chairman Paul Atkins said that there were attempts to scrap unnecessary regulations.
In a statement, the SEC calls the rule a complex, unclear and burdensome one saying it can be viewed as a “de facto strict liability standard.” WilmerHale indicated in a client alert dated May 19 that the two-year timeout might apply “even where the contribution is relatively small,” which do not demonstrate any improper intent.
Lookback provisions of the rule may pick up contributions made before an employee is recognized as a covered associate. Even donations made to a federal campaign may expose a contributor if the candidate is currently in a covered position in the state or local government.
“People should not have to choose between their political speech rights and a job in a particular industry,” said Atkins in his statement dated September 3.
What the rule was built to stop
The regulators are not acting without any background information. Research about 22,000 SEC-registered advisory firms from 2001 to 2016 shows that donations to state authorities and political action committees have corresponded to an increase in business for public pensions. The researchers also noted a significant decline in political donations from managers with a lot of government business after the regulations came into effect.
The Investment Adviser Association has pushed for reform without demanding complete repeal. It favors limiting campaign contributions in ways that do not create business deals, while over time proposing a “more tailored approach” that minimizes compliance requirements.
Timing lands in a record political-spending year
The proposal arrives as corporate political spending is on the rise. According to the report from Public Citizen published on August 27, corporations have already spent $646 million in 2026 midterms as shown by second quarter disclosures, which is 40% more than the amount spent in the entire 2024 election cycle ($461 million). Crypto companies have contributed $206 million to the total for 2026.
This creates a politically charged moment since the SEC seeks to eliminate the penalty related to financial adviser political contributions, a move that coincides with unprecedented levels of spending by corporations on elections.
There is nothing that has been finalized. The comment period will finish 60 days from the publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Again, the question is whether any public comment will have any effect on the Commission’s decision to adopt the rescission measures.
Why this could become relevant for crypto specifically
The SEC is simultaneously trying to establish a more defined regulatory framework for crypto. Its March 2026 joint SEC/CFTC interpretation addressed when certain crypto assets and transactions fall under federal securities laws.
Meanwhile, the SEC’s regulatory agenda includes work on modernizing custody rules specifically to address crypto assets. That means the pay-to-play proposal can be presented as one piece of a larger institutional-investment story:
| SEC development | Potential crypto relevance |
|---|---|
| Rescind pay-to-play rule | Could reduce compliance friction for advisers seeking government mandates |
| Crypto securities-law interpretation | Provides greater regulatory clarity around certain crypto assets |
| Custody-rule modernization | Could make it easier for advisers/funds to handle crypto assets |
| Broader SEC deregulation | Potentially lowers barriers for alternative-asset managers |
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.
FAQs
What rule is the SEC proposing to rescind?
The SEC is proposing to rescind Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the "pay-to-play" rule, along with the recordkeeping provisions tied to it in Rule 204-2.
Why does the SEC want to eliminate the pay-to-play rule?
Chairman Paul Atkins says the rule is overly prescriptive and creates a de facto strict liability standard, penalizing small or inadvertent donations, and argues political contributions belong to state, local and federal election regulators rather than the SEC.
When does the public comment period end?
The comment period stays open for 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register, following the SEC's September 3, 2026 announcement.
What does the “pay-to-play” rule currently do?
The rule creates a two-year cooling-off period after certain political contributions by an adviser or covered associates to officials who can influence the selection of investment advisers by government entities. The rule was designed to prevent political contributions from influencing the awarding of advisory contracts.
Would rescinding Rule 206(4)-5 make political contributions by investment advisers unrestricted?
No. The SEC proposal specifically targets Rule 206(4)-5 and its related recordkeeping provisions. Other Advisers Act requirements, including antifraud provisions, fiduciary duties, the compliance rule and the code of ethics rule, would continue to apply.
Would advisers still have to keep records of political contributions?
The proposal would eliminate the portions of the Advisers Act recordkeeping rule that correspond to Rule 206(4)-5. In other words, the specific federal recordkeeping requirements tied to the pay-to-play rule would also be removed.
Would the proposal immediately eliminate the pay-to-play rule?
No. This is a proposed rescission, not a final rule. Rule 206(4)-5 remains in effect unless and until the SEC adopts a final rescission.
Could rescinding the rule increase the risk of political influence over public pension assets?
That is one of the central policy questions surrounding the proposal. The original SEC rule was intended to address the risk that political contributions could influence the selection of investment advisers by government entities, potentially affecting public pension plans and other government-managed assets.
What happens to government clients if the rule is rescinded?
Government entities would no longer have the federal Rule 206(4)-5 two-year restriction as a specific regulatory safeguard. However, other federal securities-law obligations would remain, and state and local laws or procurement rules may impose separate restrictions.
Does the proposal affect only investment advisers?
Rule 206(4)-5 is an Investment Advisers Act rule, so the proposal directly concerns investment advisers subject to that rule. It does not automatically eliminate other pay-to-play restrictions imposed by other regulators or self-regulatory organizations.
Could FINRA's pay-to-play rules also disappear?
Not necessarily. The SEC proposal concerns Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-5 and related Advisers Act recordkeeping provisions. Other regulatory regimes, including separate rules applicable to broker-dealers, would have to be considered independently.
Why is the recordkeeping amendment important?
It matters because rescinding the substantive rule without removing the corresponding recordkeeping provisions could leave advisers with compliance obligations designed to document conduct that the rescinded rule no longer regulates. The proposal therefore seeks to remove the related recordkeeping requirements as well.
Does rescinding the pay-to-play rule mean investment advisers can “pay to play”?
Not necessarily. Rescinding Rule 206(4)-5 would remove the SEC's specific two-year prohibition triggered by certain political contributions, but it would not create a blanket exemption from securities-law requirements. The SEC says antifraud provisions, fiduciary duties, compliance requirements and codes of ethics would continue to apply.
Disclaimer. The information provided is not trading advice. Cryptopolitan.com holds no liability for any investments made based on the information provided on this page. We strongly recommend independent research and/or consultation with a qualified professional before making any investment decisions.
Micah Abiodun
Micah Abiodun makes good use of his Environmental Engineering and Management (MSc) at Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech) to polish content and price prediction news at Cryptopolitan. Now on his 7th year in the crypto media space, he covers major cryptos, altcoins, DeFi, stablecoins, macro trends, and emerging tech.
