

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Donald Trump and his administration are rigging our markets to work for the wealthy and well-connected while working people pay the price."
The US Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday proposed axing anti-corruption rules designed to prevent investment advisers from using political donations to obtain business from public pension funds.
Finance industry watchdogs and Democratic lawmakers warned the SEC's proposal would potentially harm Americans' retirement accounts and further boost corruption in the federal government, where graft has become increasingly common and overt under the leadership of billionaire President Donald Trump. Better Markets said the SEC's plan to rescind the agency's longstanding "pay to-play" regulations "makes buying politicians great again."
“SEC Chair Paul Atkins has yet to meet a rule he does not want to rescind," said Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy at Better Markets. "He has the SEC proposing to rescind a rule that prevents so-called ‘pay-to-play’ practices by investment advisers, where advisers make political contributions to government officials in the hopes that those officials will select them for the lucrative assignment of managing public pension funds and other government assets."
“Chair Atkins says the SEC is proposing to rescind the rule because it ‘has effectively resulted in the suppression of political speech.’ Not so," added Schiffrin. "It has resulted in the suppression of corruption. The rule was intended to, and does, ‘combat pay to play arrangements in which advisers are chosen based on their campaign contributions to political officials rather than on merit.’ Chair Atkins apparently believes that such arrangements should be promoted.”
The SEC's "pay-to-play" rules, enacted in 2010, barred investment advisers from providing paid services to government clients for at least two years after making a political contribution to an elected official or candidate.
The Trump SEC's proposal will face a 60-day public comment period once it is published in the Federal Register.
The Lever's Katya Schwenk and Freddy Brewster noted Friday that "after years of relatively weak enforcement, Biden’s SEC brought several charges against investment advisers for violating the pay-to-play rule in 2023 and 2024." For example, the Biden SEC charged Obra Capital Management for "continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation from a government entity following a campaign contribution made by an associate to an elected official with influence over selecting investment advisers for the government entity."
"Since Trump came to office, the pay-to-play rule has been the subject of lobbying by financial powerhouses that are invested in public pension funds," Schwenk and Brewster reported. "BlackRock Funds Services Group, LLC, a subsidiary of the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock, Inc., spent more than $1.5 million in 2025 lobbying the SEC, Congress, the White House, and other regulators on the pay-to-play rule, among other matters, disclosures show."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the rules targeted by Trump's SEC prevent "elected officials from rewarding wealthy campaign donors with lucrative contracts to advise government investments."
The proposed rollback, said Warren, represents "another example of how Donald Trump and his administration are rigging our markets to work for the wealthy and well-connected while working people pay the price.”
"Rescinding the rule would not eliminate climate risk from the market—it simply blindfolds investors to it, at their own expense," said one critic.
Consumer and environmental advocates on Monday called for the Securities and Exchange Commission to end its push to rescind rules requiring companies to disclose risks related to climate change.
The SEC first adopted the climate disclosure rules in 2024, with the commission describing them as a response to "investors’ demand for more consistent, comparable, and reliable information about the financial effects of climate-related risks on a registrant’s operations."
But in June, the SEC—now under the leadership of President Donald Trump-appointed chair Paul Atkins—proposed scrapping the rules, which the commission described as "an overreach of statutory authority and unsound policy."
Elyse Schupak, climate policy advocate for Public Citizen, said that ending the disclosure rules would reflect "the desire of Paul Atkins’ SEC to ignore growing financial risks from climate change and to deprive investors of essential information."
"For polluting industries that seek to downplay their role driving the climate crisis and their exposure to related risks, finalizing the proposed rule would be a victory," said Schupak. "The SEC should withdraw this proposal as it contradicts the commission’s responsibility to facilitate transparency for investors and promote well functioning capital markets."
Alex Martin, climate finance policy director at Americans for Financial Reform, noted that many investors spoke up in favor of the disclosure rules when they were first proposed because they saw climate risk assessment as a valuable information to have before making major financial decisions.
If the new proposal is finalized, Martin added, it "will hurt workers saving for retirement by depriving people of information needed to assess companies' financial risks due to climate change—and by endangering other critical disclosures as well."
Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy for Better Markets, similarly argued that scrapping the SEC rules "will deprive investors of material information essential to making informed investment decisions."
"There can no longer be any serious dispute that the climate-related risk companies face matters greatly to their future prospects," Schiffrin emphasized. "An SEC that was serious about protecting investors would be facilitating investors’ access to this information, not preventing them from understanding how climate-related risks are impacting the companies in which they invest their hard-earned money."
Janet Ranganathan, managing director at the World Resources Institute, said repealing the rule was particularly nonsensical at a time when the country is dealing with multiple climate-related disasters, including wildfires in the Pacific Northwest.
"Rescinding the rule would not eliminate climate risk from the market—it simply blindfolds investors to it, at their own expense," said Ranganathan. "Climate risk should not become the exception to smart financial management simply because it has become politically contentious."
Index providers play a prominent role in millions of working peoples’ retirement security, but they are largely unregulated. This needs to change.
Millions of working people keep their hard-earned money in low-cost index funds to secure a dignified retirement and meet other financial goals. In choosing index funds, these everyday investors assume financial industry intermediaries, regulators, and lawmakers are working to keep this investment strategy a safe and conservative one.
But the infrastructure that has historically given index fund investors this sense of security is eroding. Index providers, exchanges, and asset managers are all changing their policies and practices in ways that weaken investor protection to the benefit of executives, directors, and other corporate insiders, just in time for several Silicon Valley companies hitting the market.
Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is turning away from its investor protection mission to protect corporate insiders, and states are weakening investor protection tools to convince corporate management to pick them as their state of incorporation.
SpaceX provides a clear example. Elon Musk’s company went public in June at a sky-high valuation divorced from the company’s fundamentals. Mega AI companies Anthropic and OpenAI are also expected to go public soon.
Should we face another financial crisis or drastic market correction, Congress must not bail out corporate insiders or other powerful financial players that benefited from inflating the bubble and instead focus on protecting regular investors, families, and communities.
Traditionally, the major indices have required companies’ stock to trade publicly for a length of time to establish their financial stability before adding them to an index. But nearly all the major index providers have recently changed their rules to fast-track SpaceX and other large, recently public companies. (Notably, the S&P held the line after pressure from House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the AFL-CIO, and my organization—Americans for Financial Reform.)
The fast-tracking by the Russell 3000, the Nasdaq 100, and other major indices sets the stage for deep-pocketed early investors to cash out while leaving retirement savers holding the bag in the likely event the company’s share price comes down to better reflect the company’s actual viability.
To make matters worse, most SpaceX investors will have little redress in the event they are harmed by wrongdoing on the part of the company, Musk, or other insiders. SpaceX is trying to ban class actions and force lawsuits into Texas Business Court or arbitration (both notoriously insider-friendly fora).
SpaceX was able to include a forced arbitration provision in its IPO deal after the SEC made an about-face, effectively allowing companies to block a powerful tool to combat corporate fraud and misconduct.
SpaceX is also taking advantage of Texas corporate law provisions that make it exceedingly difficult to bring claims under state law to hold corporate insiders accountable for wrongdoing.
In the meantime, regular shareholders are being denied the opportunity to provide meaningful input. Musk retains 85% voting power in a multi-class share structure where holders of one class of shares have 10 times the voting rights of shares available to the public.
One of the more disturbing implications of this structure: Only Musk can fire himself.
Meanwhile, as massive AI companies are seeking to go public, the SEC has proposed rules that would permit SpaceX and other large companies to make significantly fewer disclosures compared with what large public companies are currently required to make.
To protect working families’ retirement funds, Congress and financial regulators need to step in. Index providers play a prominent role in millions of working peoples’ retirement security, but they are largely unregulated. This needs to change. Relatedly, asset managers of index funds need to be further regulated so they do not effectively outsource their responsibilities to largely unregulated index providers or use their voting power to rubber-stamp management decisions.
We also need to curb the power of corporate insiders, who call the shots on where a company is incorporated and on which exchanges they’re listed, by setting a federal floor that protects long-term investors and workers.
Congress should also set more stringent requirements for the SEC so it doesn’t lose sight of its mission to protect investors, including by mandating robust disclosures; disallowing forced arbitration; having a more public, thorough process for reviewing the paperwork companies need to file before they can go public; and eliminating or sharply curtailing the SEC’s authority to exempt regulated entities from requirements.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon recently warned that today’s bullish stock market feels like 2007, when the country was on the brink of a financial crash. When that crash hit, working people wound up bearing the brunt of the crisis while Wall Street banks and their corporate clients got bailed out.
Should we face another financial crisis or drastic market correction, Congress must not bail out corporate insiders or other powerful financial players that benefited from inflating the bubble and instead focus on protecting regular investors, families, and communities.
New reporting reveals that the top enforcement official at the Securities and Exchange Commission clashed with agency leaders over cases involving billionaires Elon Musk and Justin Sun.
The top enforcement official at the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the agency tasked with investigating insider trading and other illegal activity in financial markets, resigned last week after reportedly clashing with the regulatory body's leadership over the handling of cases linked to President Donald Trump.
Reuters reported Monday that Margaret Ryan, who until last week served as director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, "wanted to be more aggressive in pursuing charges for fraud and other misconduct, including in cases that touched the president's circle, but faced resistance from SEC chair Paul Atkins and other top Republican political appointees."
Ryan, who previously served as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, lasted just under seven months in the SEC role, which observers said is unusual. According to Reuters, one case that "sparked tension" between Ryan and SEC leadership "involved cryptocurrency entrepreneur Justin Sun, a major backer of the Trump family's World Liberty Financial venture."
Earlier this month—less than two weeks before Ryan announced her departure from the agency—the SEC dismissed a case against Sun that the Biden administration brought in 2023, accusing the billionaire of violating "antifraud and market manipulation provisions of the federal securities laws."
Reuters reported that another case over which Ryan and SEC leaders clashed "involved Tesla boss Elon Musk, a big donor to Trump's campaign who briefly served as the president's special adviser."
"March court filings showed that the SEC is in talks with Musk to settle charges that he waited too long to disclose in 2022 that he had amassed a large stake in Twitter, which he later bought and renamed X. That allowed Musk to buy more shares at artificially low prices, it said. The agency filed the charges a week before Trump took power in January last year."
"During a March 4 court hearing, the details of which were first reported by the FT, a lawyer for Musk said those talks were with officials above the SEC staff working on the case, the transcript shows," the outlet continued. "While it is common for the agency to settle litigation out of court, it had strong cases against both Sun and Musk and a good chance of winning tougher penalties in court, according to securities lawyers who had been tracking the proceedings."
Bombshell reporting alleging that the @SECGov enforcement director suddenly quit 6-mo into the job over the political appointees going too easy on Justin Sun & Muskhttps://t.co/t88oOk3AUu
— Amanda Fischer (@amandalfischer) March 23, 2026
Ryan's abrupt departure comes at a time when a small number of unidentified traders and gamblers are making huge, suspiciously timed bets related to major US foreign policy decisions, including in Venezuela and Iran. The lucrative bets have sparked concerns that members of Trump's inner circle are illegally profiting off nonpublic information—and potentially influencing life-or-death government decisions.
The New York Times noted that Ryan's exit could "further embolden" Atkins, the Trump-appointed SEC chair, to "rein in the agency’s enforcement division."
"Well before Ms. Ryan arrived," the Times reported last week, "the agency had begun to retreat from a variety of Biden-era enforcement priorities, including cracking down on Wall Street and the cryptocurrency industry."