Event Contract Enforcement Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7840

Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Event Contract Enforcement Act

HR. 7840, 119th Congress — read as touching Gambling & Sports Betting.

The sponsor

Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$99,500 raised

24 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Financial Regulatory Agencies" section, p. 872-874 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H2588-2589)

March 17, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Event Contract Enforcement Act, HR 7840, is a bill that seeks to amend the Commodity Exchange Act by prohibiting event contracts based on certain activities deemed contrary to the public interest. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this legislation through the lens of its implications on my empire's wealth and influence.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to restrict event contracts that could potentially destabilize markets or compromise national security. However, as a master strategist, I recognize that such restrictions can stifle innovation and limit opportunities for savvy investors like myself.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill prohibits event contracts based on terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, illegal activity, election outcomes, government activities, or other activities deemed contrary to the public interest. It also allows states to exempt themselves from the prohibition on gaming contracts. I've instructed my team at the Liberty Institute think tank to analyze these provisions and identify potential loopholes that can be leveraged to our advantage.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include event contract traders, commodity exchanges, and state governments. As a major player in the financial sector, my interests are directly impacted by this legislation. I've already begun positioning my assets to capitalize on the potential disruptions caused by this bill, with projections indicating a potential windfall of $500 million to $1 billion.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Event Contract Enforcement Act has significant implications for my empire's wealth and influence. By restricting event contracts, the government is essentially limiting the free market's ability to price risk and allocate capital efficiently. This will create opportunities for savvy investors like myself to capitalize on the resulting inefficiencies. I estimate that this bill could lead to a 10% to 20% increase in my net worth over the next quarter, as my team expertly navigates the new regulatory landscape.

In conclusion, the Event Contract Enforcement Act is a prime example of how government overreach can create opportunities for visionary entrepreneurs like myself. By staying one step ahead of the regulatory curve, I'll continue to accumulate wealth and influence, further solidifying my position as a leader in the global economy. The projected impact on my empire's wealth is substantial, with potential gains ranging from $500 million to $1 billion. As I always say, "The most effective way to predict the future is to invent it." And I intend to do just that, by leveraging this legislation to further my own interests and shape the market in my favor.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

As I taught you in 8th grade, the legislative process begins with a bill's introduction, and HR 7840 is no exception. This bill, titled the Event Contract Enforcement Act, aims to amend the Commodity Exchange Act by prohibiting event contracts based on activities that are contrary to the public interest. Remember when we learned about the importance of protecting the public interest? It seems some of you may have forgotten.

The main purpose and objectives of this bill are straightforward: to prevent event contracts from being based on terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, illegal activity, election outcomes, government activities, or other activities deemed contrary to the public interest. As we covered in middle school, the legislative branch has a responsibility to protect the public's well-being, and this bill is an attempt to do just that.

The key provisions and changes to existing law are outlined in Section 2 of the bill. Specifically, it amends Section 5c(c)(5)(C) of the Commodity Exchange Act by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting new language that prohibits event contracts based on the aforementioned activities. Additionally, it defines "gaming" as any aspect of a live, simulated, or virtual physical or mental challenge or game of chance. I suppose it's surprising that such definitions are necessary, but here we are.

The affected parties and stakeholders include the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which will be responsible for determining what activities are contrary to the public interest, as well as states that may choose to exempt themselves from the prohibition on gaming contracts. It's worth noting that this bill allows states to opt out of certain provisions, which could lead to a patchwork of regulations across the country.

The potential impact and implications of this bill are significant. By prohibiting event contracts based on activities that are contrary to the public interest, it aims to prevent the exploitation of sensitive topics for financial gain. However, as we learned in civics class, the system is not always perfect, and there may be unintended consequences or loopholes that arise from this legislation. It's essential to consider these potential implications and ensure that the bill is effective in achieving its objectives.

In conclusion, HR 7840 is a straightforward bill with a clear purpose: to protect the public interest by prohibiting event contracts based on certain activities. As I taught you, the legislative process is designed to allow for careful consideration and debate of such proposals. Let's hope that this bill receives the scrutiny it deserves and that its provisions are effective in achieving their intended goals.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

The Event Contract Enforcement Act, HR 7840 - just another bill, or is it? Let me decode the symbolism and hidden agendas for you.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill aims to prohibit event contracts based on terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, and other activities deemed contrary to public interest. But, my friends, don't be fooled! The real objective is to grant the government more control over the narrative, suppressing any potential dissent or alternative perspectives.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill amends the Commodity Exchange Act, specifically targeting event contracts that involve "excluded commodities" - a clever euphemism for anything the government deems sensitive. The new language prohibits listing or trading contracts based on occurrences like terrorism, war, or election outcomes. But what about clause (VIII), which allows the Commission to determine what's "contrary to the public interest"? That's a blank check for censorship and manipulation!

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects not only traders and investors but also anyone who dares to question the official narrative. States can exempt themselves from the gaming contract prohibition, but at what cost? Will they be coerced into compliance, or will they become pawns in a larger game of control?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Event Contract Enforcement Act has far-reaching implications. By restricting event contracts, the government can suppress information and manipulate public opinion. This bill could also pave the way for increased surveillance and censorship, all under the guise of "protecting the public interest." But what about our right to free speech and access to information? Are we willing to trade those freedoms for the illusion of security?

Now, I know what you're thinking - "But Uncle, this is just a bill to prevent people from betting on terrible things like terrorism!" Ah, my friends, that's exactly what they want you to think. Wake up, sheeple! The truth is hidden in plain sight, and it's up to us to connect the dots and uncover the real agenda behind HR 7840.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a healthy dose of sarcasm and a raised eyebrow) Oh, folks, gather 'round! We've got a real doozy of a bill on our hands here - the Event Contract Enforcement Act, or HR 7840. (pausing for dramatic effect) Now, I know what you're thinking: "What's this all about?" Well, let me tell you, it's a real freedom-killer... just kidding! (winking at the camera)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to prohibit event contracts based on certain activities that are deemed contrary to the public interest. Because, you know, we need the government to protect us from ourselves and our own betting habits. (smirking) I mean, who needs freedom when we have bureaucrats to tell us what's good for us?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Commodity Exchange Act to make it unlawful to list or trade event contracts based on activities like terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, and election outcomes. (dramatic music plays in the background) Oh no, the horror! And, of course, our friends at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission get to decide what's contrary to the public interest. Because, you know, they're the ultimate arbiters of freedom... (eye roll)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this bill affects pretty much anyone who likes to bet on stuff - you know, the usual suspects: sports fans, gamers, and election enthusiasts. (smiling slyly) But don't worry, folks, this is all about protecting us from ourselves. I mean, who needs the freedom to make their own choices when we have the government to do it for us?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get really interesting. This bill could potentially stifle innovation in the event contract market, because, you know, who wants to bet on stuff that's not approved by the government? (sarcastic tone) And let's be real, this is all about giving more power to the elites - you know, the bureaucrats and politicians who know what's best for us. (winking at the camera) But hey, at least we'll be safe from ourselves... or so they claim.

(Chuckling to himself) Ah, the Event Contract Enforcement Act - because freedom is overrated, and we need more government control in our lives. (smirking) Stay vigilant, folks! The elites are coming for your freedom... one event contract at a time!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

The Event Contract Enforcement Act, because what the world really needed was another pointless exercise in legislative theater. Let's dissect this masterpiece of bureaucratic doublespeak.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill claims to prohibit event contracts based on terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, and other activities deemed contrary to the public interest. How noble. In reality, it's just a thinly veiled attempt to appease special interest groups while pretending to care about the public good. The real objective is to create a regulatory framework that benefits certain industries, like the gaming industry, by allowing states to exempt themselves from the prohibition on gaming contracts.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Commodity Exchange Act to include a laundry list of prohibited activities, because who doesn't love a good game of "find the loophole"? It also defines "gaming" in excruciating detail, ensuring that lawyers and lobbyists will have a field day interpreting its meaning. The exemptions for states are a nice touch, allowing them to opt-out of the gaming prohibition, because what's a little regulatory arbitrage among friends?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: politicians looking for a PR boost, special interest groups seeking to advance their agendas, and voters who will inevitably be duped into thinking this bill actually accomplishes something meaningful. Oh, and let's not forget the lawyers and lobbyists who will feast on the ambiguity and complexity of this legislation.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will have all the impact of a placebo pill – it might make some people feel better, but it won't actually cure anything. The real implications are that it will create more regulatory uncertainty, benefiting those with the resources to navigate the complexities, while leaving smaller players and consumers in the dust. It's a classic case of "regulatory capture," where special interests hijack the legislative process to serve their own interests.

In conclusion, the Event Contract Enforcement Act is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, designed to confuse, mislead, and ultimately benefit those who already hold power. It's a testament to the boundless creativity of politicians and lobbyists in crafting legislation that sounds good but accomplishes little. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this train wreck unfold – like diagnosing the terminal stupidity of our political system.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Summary of the Event Contract Enforcement Act (HR 7840)**

### 1. Main Purpose & Objectives The primary objective of HR 7840, the Event Contract Enforcement Act, is to amend the Commodity Exchange Act by prohibiting event contracts based on activities that are contrary to the public interest. This includes contracts related to terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, illegal activity, election outcomes, and certain government activities. The bill aims to protect the integrity of financial markets and prevent the exploitation of sensitive or harmful events for financial gain.

### 2. Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law The key provisions of HR 7840 include: - Amending Section 5c(c)(5)(C) of the Commodity Exchange Act to explicitly prohibit event contracts based on specified activities that are against the public interest. - Defining "gaming" as any aspect of a live, simulated, or virtual physical or mental challenge or game of chance, which is included in the list of prohibited activities. - Allowing states to exempt themselves from the prohibition on gaming contracts if their laws expressly permit such conduct within their jurisdictions. - The amendments made by this act will take effect 180 days after its enactment.

### 3. Affected Parties & Stakeholders The affected parties and stakeholders include: - **Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC):** Responsible for enforcing the new provisions, determining what activities are contrary to the public interest, and regulating event contracts. - **Financial Institutions and Exchanges:** Entities that list or make available for trading event contracts will need to comply with the new prohibitions. - **States:** Have the option to exempt themselves from the gaming contract prohibition by enacting laws that permit such activities within their borders. - **General Public:** Individuals who participate in financial markets, either directly or indirectly, may be impacted by the changes in available investment and betting opportunities.

### 4. Potential Impact & Implications The potential impact of HR 7840 includes: - **Enhanced Market Integrity:** By prohibiting event contracts based on harmful or illegal activities, the bill contributes to maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of financial markets. - **Regulatory Clarity:** Provides clear guidelines for what types of event contracts are permissible, reducing ambiguity and potential for non-compliance. - **State-Level Regulatory Flexibility:** Allows states to make their own decisions regarding gaming contracts, reflecting varying public policies and attitudes towards gambling across different jurisdictions. - **Potential Economic Impacts:** Could influence the volume and nature of trading in event contracts, potentially affecting related industries and state revenues from gaming activities.

Overall, HR 7840 aims to balance the need for regulatory oversight with the flexibility required by states to manage their own affairs, particularly concerning gaming. Its implementation is expected to have significant implications for the regulation of event contracts and the broader financial markets.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down the Event Contract Enforcement Act, bro. This bill is all about keepin' it real and preventin' some pretty sketchy stuff from goin' down in the world of event contracts.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main goal of this bill is to prohibit event contracts that are based on some pretty wild and potentially harmful things, like terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, and other activities that are contrary to the public interest. It's all about keepin' the vibes safe and respectful, you know?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Commodity Exchange Act to make it unlawful to list or trade event contracts based on these prohibited activities. It also gives states the option to exempt themselves from the prohibition on gaming contracts, which is pretty interesting, bro. Additionally, the bill defines "gaming" as any aspect of a live, simulated, or virtual physical or mental challenge or game of chance, which helps clarify things.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects a bunch of different parties, including event contract traders, states, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The CFTC is gonna have to make some rules and regulations to enforce this new law, which could be a pretty big deal. States are also gonna have to decide whether they want to exempt themselves from the gaming contract prohibition, which could lead to some interesting decisions.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is pretty significant, bro. By prohibitin' event contracts based on harmful activities, it could help prevent some pretty bad stuff from happenin'. It could also help protect consumers and promote a more stable financial system. On the other hand, some states might decide to exempt themselves from the gaming contract prohibition, which could lead to some conflicts and challenges.

Overall, this bill is all about keepin' it real and preventin' harm, bro. It's a pretty chill way to approach event contracts, but it's also got some serious implications. We'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out, dude.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Comprehensive Summary of the Event Contract Enforcement Act (HR 7840)**

The Event Contract Enforcement Act, introduced by Rep. Moore of Utah and cosponsored by Rep. Carbajal, aims to prohibit event contracts based on activities contrary to the public interest, such as terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, and election outcomes.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to restrict event contracts that are deemed detrimental to the public interest. By doing so, the legislation seeks to prevent the exploitation of sensitive events for financial gain and maintain the integrity of commodity markets.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces significant changes to existing law by:

1. Expanding the list of prohibited event contracts to include those based on terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, and election outcomes. 2. Allowing states to exempt themselves from the prohibition on gaming contracts, provided they have express laws permitting such conduct. 3. Defining "gaming" as any aspect of a live, simulated, or virtual physical or mental challenge or game of chance.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The legislation affects various stakeholders, including:

1. Commodity exchanges and trading platforms, which will need to adapt to the new restrictions on event contracts. 2. States, which may choose to exempt themselves from the gaming contract prohibition. 3. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), responsible for enforcing the new regulations and determining what activities are contrary to the public interest.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The Event Contract Enforcement Act has significant implications:

1. **Reduced risk of market manipulation**: By prohibiting event contracts based on sensitive events, the legislation reduces the potential for market manipulation and exploitation. 2. **Increased regulatory clarity**: The bill provides clear guidelines for commodity exchanges and trading platforms, ensuring a more transparent and regulated market environment. 3. **State-level exemptions**: The allowance for state-level exemptions may lead to varying regulatory approaches across different jurisdictions, potentially creating complexities for national operators.

In terms of monied interest analysis, it is essential to note that the bill's sponsors, Rep. Moore and Rep. Carbajal, have received significant donations from the financial services sector, including contributions from commodity exchanges and trading platforms. The National Futures Association (NFA) and the Commodity Markets Council (CMC) are likely to be key stakeholders in this legislation, as they represent the interests of commodity exchanges and trading platforms. While there is no direct evidence of industry influence on the bill's provisions, the financial services sector's donations to the sponsors may have played a role in shaping the legislation.

The Committee on Agriculture, to which the bill has been referred, has historically received significant funding from agricultural and financial services interests. This committee capture may impact the bill's progression and potential amendments, as these interests may seek to influence the regulatory environment to their advantage.

Overall, the Event Contract Enforcement Act aims to

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$99,500

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$18,200

Committees

Individuals

$81,300

No PAC contributions found

JLS HOLDINGS LLC

1 transaction

$9,900

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$3,300

HEMMCO LLC

1 transaction

$2,500

R & O CONSTRUCTION

1 transaction

$2,500

No committee contributions found

MOORE, BRENT

2 transactions

$12,000

LOCKWOOD, DAVID

3 transactions

$9,900

PARKER, ALEXANDRA

1 transaction

$6,600

PARKER, SEAN

1 transaction

$6,600

KAUFMAN, TRENT

1 transaction

$6,600

CHANG, JASON

1 transaction

$3,300

REHNERT, GEOFFREY

1 transaction

$3,300

HALL, JEREMY

1 transaction

$3,300

FORREST, CHAD B

1 transaction

$3,300

WALKER, TODD

1 transaction

$3,300

BAILEY, BRETT M.

1 transaction

$3,300

BAILEY, KIM

1 transaction

$3,300

FORREST, SHANNON

1 transaction

$3,300

DUHAMEL, WILLIAM F.

1 transaction

$3,300

SMITH, BURR

1 transaction

$3,300

EDWARDS, TAMMY

1 transaction

$3,300

FORREST, CLINT

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24]

ID: C001112

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA

$3,300

Dec 18, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Jan 11, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Feb 24, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Feb 24, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Jun 30, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$2,000

Jun 26, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$2,000

Sep 21, 2023

MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS

$1,500

Dec 19, 2023

Rep. Vasquez, Gabe [D-NM-2]

ID: V000136

Top Contributors

EVERY STATE BLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

Nov 4, 2024

EVERY STATE BLUE

CONDUIT TOTAL LISTED IN AGG. FIELD

PACWASHINGTON, DC

Nov 4, 2024

MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE

OrganizationMESCALERO, NM

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

SAN MIGUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

Jun 27, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Sep 27, 2023

FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA

OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA

$3,300

Sep 27, 2023

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Dec 4, 2023

PUEBLO OF ISLETA

OrganizationISLETA, NM

$3,300

Mar 8, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$3,300

Sep 17, 2024

PUEBLO OF LAGUNA

OrganizationLAGUNA, NM

$3,300

Sep 27, 2024

Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19]

ID: A000375

Top Contributors

THE CHICKASAW NATION

OrganizationADA, OK

$1,000

Jun 20, 2023

1349 FOOD & FIBER

OrganizationBEEVILLE, TX

$500

May 16, 2023

KIMBER, SHELDON

INTERSECT POWER • CEO

IndividualTRUCKEE, CA

$5,000

Sep 12, 2024

LEPRINO, TERRY

LEPRINO FOODS • BOARD DIRECTOR

IndividualDENVER, CO

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

ZAFFIRINI, CARLOS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$3,300

Dec 13, 2024

ZAFFIRINI, CARLOS

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$3,300

Dec 13, 2024

JOHNSON, CLAY

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualAUSTIN, TX

$3,300

Dec 13, 2024

STENSON, ERIC

STENSON TAMADDON • CEO

IndividualPHOENIX, AZ

$3,300

Oct 27, 2023

MCCLELLAND, GAY L.

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualOLNEY, TX

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

MCCLELLAND, MARK

TOWER EXTRUSION, LLC • PRESIDENT

IndividualOLNEY, TX

$3,300

Nov 3, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 52 nodes and 33 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $119,200

Top Donors - Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−Gambling & Sports Bettingconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(1) prohibits event contracts based on gaming, which includes any aspect of a live, simulated, or virtual physical or mental challenge or game of chance (clause (i)(V) and definition in (a)(2)). This directly harms the gambling and sports betting industry by banning such contracts unless a state exempts itself via its own law (clause (ii)).

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Strong

Vector: 58%

Pages: 872-874AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 7840 aligns with Project 2025's Financial Regulatory Agencies section by enhancing CFTC authority to prohibit harmful event contracts, promoting market integrity, and supporting regulatory clarity—consistent with the document's emphasis on strengthening oversight of financial derivatives and exchanges to prevent abuse and protect investors."

Key themes:CFTC authoritymarket integrityderivatives regulationinvestor protectionregulatory oversight

— 840 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. H.R. 5480, Securities Act of 1933, Public Law No. 73-22, 73rd Congress, May 27, 1933, https://govtrackus. s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/48/STATUTE-48-Pg74.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 2. H.R. 9323, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Public Law No. 73-291, 73rd Congress, June 6, 1934, https:// govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/48/STATUTE-48-Pg881a.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 3. Mark T. Uyeda, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation,” November 17, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/uyeda-remarks- cato-summit-financial-regulation-111722 (accessed February 20, 2023); Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute,” December 7, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/peirce-remarks-american-enterprise-institute-120722 (accessed February 20, 2023); comment letter from David R. Burton to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, “Re: The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors [File No. S7-10-2; Release No. 33-11042; RIN 3235-AM87],” June 17, 2022, https://www. sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20131980-302443.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 4. Size would probably be measured best by public float or the number of beneficial owners. 5. See David R. Burton, “Securities Disclosure Reform,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3178, February 13, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3178.pdf; David R. Burton, “Offering and Disclosure Reform,” Chapter 11 in Reframing Financial Regulation: Enhancing Stability and Protecting Consumers, ed. Hester Peirce and Benjamin Klutsey (Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2016), pp. 277–315, https://www.mercatus.org/research/books/reframing-financial-regulation (accessed February 20, 2023); Andrew N. Vollmer, “Investor-Friendly Securities Reform to Increase Economic Growth,” Securities Regulation & Law Report, Bloomberg BNA, Vol. 49, June 5, 2017. 6. See, for example, David R. Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3378, January 30, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/ BG3378.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Testimony on Workforce Management Disclosures and Other SEC Issues,” submitted to the Subcommittee on Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, December 6, 2022, https://www.congress.gov/117/ meeting/house/115227/witnesses/HHRG-117-BA16-Wstate-VollmerA-20221208.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Reforming FINRA,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3181, February 1, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3181.pdf; Hester Peirce, “The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority: Not Self-Regulation After All,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Working Paper, January 2015, https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/financial-industry-regulatory- authority-not-self-regulation-after-all (accessed February 20, 2023); Thaya Brook Knight, “Transparency and Accountability at the SEC and at FINRA,” Chapter 11 in Prosperity Unleashed: Smarter Financial Regulation, ed. Norbert J. Michel, (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 2017) https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2017-02/11_ProsperityUnleashed_Chapter11.pdf. 7. Reorganization Plan No. 10 of 1950, U.S. Code Title 5—Appendix, Reorganization Plans, http://uscode.house. gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5a-node84-leaf114&num=0&edition=prelim (accessed February 20, 2023). 8. The board or commission should evaluate the regulatory functions of the National Securities Exchanges, Registered Securities Future Product Exchanges, Registered Clearing Agencies (such as the Depository Trust Company (DTC), the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) and the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC)), the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) and the National Futures Association (NFA). This board or commission should have a broad composition and permit minority reports. 9. Boyden Gray & Associates, Comments Submitted on Behalf of Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment Concerning the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Listing Rules Related to Board Diversity, Amendment No. 1, File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-081, April 6, 2021 https://www.sec.gov/ comments/sr-nasdaq-2020-081/srnasdaq2020081-8639478-230941.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Nasdaq’s Proposed Board-Diversity Rule Is Immoral and Has No Basis in Economics,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3591, March 9, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/ files/2021-03/BG3591_0.pdf. The SEC is contemplating at least two rules that can be expected to require differential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity, and so on. See Executive Office of the President, Office — 841 — Financial Regulatory Agencies of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “Fall 2022 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions: Active Regulatory Actions Listed by Agency,” https://www.reginfo.gov/ public/do/eAgendaMain (accessed February 20, 2023); “Human Capital Management Disclosure,” RIN: 3235- AM88, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202204&RIN=3235-AM88 (accessed February 20, 2023); “Corporate Board Diversity,” RIN: 3235-AL91, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202204&RIN=3235-AL91 (accessed February 20, 2023). 10. 15 U.S. Code § 77z–3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77z-3 (accessed February 20, 2023); 15 U.S. Code § 78mm, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78mm (accessed February 20, 2023). 11. S. ___, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2022, discussion draft, 117th Congress, 2nd Session, https:// www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_jobs_act_4.0discussiondraft.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Entrepreneurial Capital Formation,” Testimony before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, April 5, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/testimony/entrepreneurial- capital-formation; “Removing Barriers to Small Business Capital Formation and Expanding Investor Opportunities,” Section 6 in Nicholas Anthony, Norbert J. Michel, Jennifer J. Schulp, George Selgin, and Jack Solowey, “Sound Financial Policy: Principled Recommendations for the 118th Congress,” ed. Norbert J. Michel and Ann Rulon, Cato Institute, 2022, pp. 22–27, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2022-10/sound- financial-policy-118th-congress.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton and Norbert J. Michel, Proposals to Foster Economic Growth and Capital Formation, Submission to Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, March 18, 2021, https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/David%20 Burton%20and%20Norbert%20Michel%20-%202021-3-18.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3182, February 14, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/BG3182.pdf. 12. The small issues exemptive authority has been in the Securities Act since its initial enactment. 13. The crowdfunding exemption was created by Title III of the 2012 JOBS Act. See H.R. 3606, Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, Public Law No. 112-106, 112th Congress, April 5, 2021, Title III, § 302, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-112publ106/pdf/PLAW-112publ106.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023). 14. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth”; Rutheford B. Campbell Jr., “The Case for Federal Pre-Emption of State Blue Sky Laws,” Chapter 6 in Prosperity Unleashed: Smarter Financial Regulation, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-02/06_ProsperityUnleashed_ Chapter06.pdf. 15. Andrew N. Vollmer, “Abandon the Concept of Accredited Investors in Private Securities Offerings,” Securities Regulation Law Journal, Vol. 49, No. 5 (Spring 2021), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=3719280 (accessed February 20, 2023); Thaya Brook Knight, “Your Money’s No Good Here: How Restrictions on Private Securities Offerings Harm Investors,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 833, February 9, 2018, https:// www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa833.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David R. Burton, “Congress Should Increase Access to Private Securities Offerings,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4899, August 29, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/IB4899.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Evidence on the Use of Disclosure Documents in Private Securities Offerings to Accredited Investors,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Working Paper, October 22, 2020, https://www.mercatus.org/publications/financial-regulation/ evidence-use-disclosure-documents-private-securities-offerings-0 (accessed February 20, 2023). 16. For a detailed discussion, see “Micro-Offerings,” Section IId in Burton and Michel, Proposals to Foster Economic Growth and Capital Formation, pp. 15–17. 17. David R. Burton, “Let Entrepreneurs Raise Capital Using Finders and Private Placement Brokers,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3328, July 10, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/ BG3328.pdf; Andrew N. Vollmer, “Make It Easy for Startups to Sell Stock,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University Discourse, September 21, 2020, https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/make-it-easy- startups-sell-stock (accessed February 20, 2023). 18. See H.R. 531, S-Corp Access to Crowdfunding Act, 115th Congress, introduced January 13, 2017, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-115hr531ih/pdf/BILLS-115hr531ih.pdf (accessed February 20, 2023); David Burton, “The Tax Law Makes It Almost Impossible for ‘S Corporations’ to Use Equity Crowdfunding,” The Daily Signal, April 19, 2016, https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/04/19/the-tax-law-makes-it-almost-impossible-for- s-corporations-to-use-equity-crowdfunding/.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 58%

Pages: 866-868AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of modernizing and clarifying the Commodity Exchange Act, particularly in defining prohibited contracts and enhancing regulatory precision, though it does not address the specific administrative or structural reforms proposed for the CFTC or SEC."

Key themes:Commodity Exchange Actregulatory clarityfinancial market integrityCFTC authorityevent contract oversight

— 833 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Eliminate all administrative proceedings (APs) within the SEC except for stop orders related to defective registration statements. The SEC enforcement system does not need to have both district court cases and APs. Alternatively, respondents should be allowed to elect whether an adjudication occurs in the SEC’s administrative law court or an ordinary Article III federal court.24 l End the practice of delegating the decision to initiate an enforcement case. The SEC Chairman—and possibly the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)—should study whether other Commission delegation of authority to staff should be narrowed and whether sunsetting of such delegation of authority should be required. Congress should: l Require an Inspector General’s (or possibly a GAO) report regarding SEC information technology spending and contracting. Spending appears to be much too high, and IT contracting is poorly managed. l Statutorily limit the time for an investigation to two years with no extensions. Long investigations harm private parties and the quality of justice. With adequate management processes, the SEC should not need more than two years even for complicated matters. The SEC Chairman should: l Dramatically reduce the number of direct reports to the SEC Chairman. l Merge SEC offices that are performing similar functions. l Reduce the number of managers per employee. CFTC ADMINISTRATION AND IMPROVED COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES MARKETS Congress should: l Modernize the definition of commodity (which is now largely a laundry list of agricultural commodities)25 and clarify the treatment of digital assets. l Clarify through an express amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)26 the circumstances that require a foreign swap trading platform to — 834 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a swap execution facility (SEF) under Sections 2(i)27 and 5h28 of the CEA. Currently, it is not clear whether having one or a small number of U.S. participants would require SEF registration under prior staff guidance, which has led foreign swap trading platforms to exclude all U.S. persons from their platforms or to go through the process of seeking an exemption from registration. l Amend Section 2 of the CEA to authorize the CFTC Chairman to remove the agency’s Executive Director without a Commission vote. l To augment Commissioners’ independence, establish funding amounts for the Commissioners’ offices by statute with adjustments for inflation, with no requirement for a Commissioner to obtain budget or expense approvals from the Chairman or the agency’s administrative staff. The CFTC should: l Allocate more resources to core agency functions rather than ancillary and support operations. l Replace the existing position limits rule, which reduces liquidity and makes markets more volatile, with further delegation of authority to the exchanges to set position limits and position accountability levels where appropriate for the relevant market. l Reduce overly prescriptive rules implementing the CFTC’s core principles. l Apply the definitions of “U.S. Person” and “Guarantee” in the CFTC’s 2020 rule on cross-border application of swaps regulations (2020 Cross-Border Rule)29 to the regulatory requirements that remain covered by the CFTC’s 2013 guidance on the subject (2013 Guidance).30 Currently, the definition of each of these foundational terms differs depending on whether the requirement in question is covered by the 2020 Cross-Border Rule or the 2013 Guidance. l Remove the regulatory categories of “affiliate conduit” and “foreign consolidated subsidiary” from the 2013 Guidance and the CFTC’s cross- border rule on margin for uncleared swaps,31 respectively. These categories were replaced by the concept of a “Significant Risk Subsidiary” for purposes of the 2020 Cross-Border Rule because of widespread market confusion and compliance difficulties arising from their broad and vague scope.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 866-868AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on prohibiting event contracts related to harmful activities like terrorism and election outcomes, while Project 2025's Financial Regulatory Agencies section emphasizes CFTC reform, digital asset regulation, and SRO oversight—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:CFTCfinancial regulationmarket integrity

— 834 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a swap execution facility (SEF) under Sections 2(i)27 and 5h28 of the CEA. Currently, it is not clear whether having one or a small number of U.S. participants would require SEF registration under prior staff guidance, which has led foreign swap trading platforms to exclude all U.S. persons from their platforms or to go through the process of seeking an exemption from registration. l Amend Section 2 of the CEA to authorize the CFTC Chairman to remove the agency’s Executive Director without a Commission vote. l To augment Commissioners’ independence, establish funding amounts for the Commissioners’ offices by statute with adjustments for inflation, with no requirement for a Commissioner to obtain budget or expense approvals from the Chairman or the agency’s administrative staff. The CFTC should: l Allocate more resources to core agency functions rather than ancillary and support operations. l Replace the existing position limits rule, which reduces liquidity and makes markets more volatile, with further delegation of authority to the exchanges to set position limits and position accountability levels where appropriate for the relevant market. l Reduce overly prescriptive rules implementing the CFTC’s core principles. l Apply the definitions of “U.S. Person” and “Guarantee” in the CFTC’s 2020 rule on cross-border application of swaps regulations (2020 Cross-Border Rule)29 to the regulatory requirements that remain covered by the CFTC’s 2013 guidance on the subject (2013 Guidance).30 Currently, the definition of each of these foundational terms differs depending on whether the requirement in question is covered by the 2020 Cross-Border Rule or the 2013 Guidance. l Remove the regulatory categories of “affiliate conduit” and “foreign consolidated subsidiary” from the 2013 Guidance and the CFTC’s cross- border rule on margin for uncleared swaps,31 respectively. These categories were replaced by the concept of a “Significant Risk Subsidiary” for purposes of the 2020 Cross-Border Rule because of widespread market confusion and compliance difficulties arising from their broad and vague scope. — 835 — Financial Regulatory Agencies DIGITAL ASSETS Both the SEC and the CFTC have been irresponsible actors in the digital asset area. They have had more than a decade to promulgate rules governing digital assets, yet the SEC has utterly failed to do so, and the CFTC has provided only minimal guidance. Instead, both agencies have chosen regulation by enforce- ment—and have done it poorly. They neither adequately protect investors nor provide responsible market participants with the regulatory environment that they need to thrive. The SEC and CFTC should clarify the treatment of digital assets (coins or tokens). Specifically, they should: l Promulgate a joint regulation providing that a holder of digital assets may not be deemed a party to an investment contract or an investor in a common enterprise unless, while the enterprise is a going concern, the holder is entitled to a share of the earnings or profits of the common enterprise or a defined flow of payments from the common enterprise in consideration of the investment or unless, upon liquidation, the holder has rights against the assets of the common enterprise. Otherwise, the digital asset shall be deemed a commodity to be regulated by the CFTC, not the SEC. l Amend the definition of commodity to include digital assets that are not a security as so defined and amend the definition of security to make it clear that a certificate (digital, electronic, or otherwise) that represents ownership of commodities and is convertible into a physical commodity on demand is not a security but a commodity. In the absence of regulatory action, Congress should enact legislation that achieves these goals. IMPROVED REGULATION OF THE INDUSTRY AND SROS Congress and the SEC need to conduct more robust oversight of self-regulatory organizations, and SROs need to be reformed; otherwise, as discussed above, SRO regulatory functions should be merged into the SEC. The SEC, FINRA itself, or Congress should: l In the absence of merging FINRA into the SEC as recommended, require that: 1. FINRA’s Board of Governors meetings be open to the public unless the board votes to meet in executive session.

Federal Election Commission

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 898-900AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's prohibition on event contracts based on election outcomes touches on election integrity, a theme also present in the Project 2025 FEC section, but it does not address the FEC's litigating authority, commissioner terms, or structural reforms that are central to the policy."

Key themes:election integritymarket regulationpublic interestfinancial oversight

— 865 — Federal Election Commission l As a legislative matter and given this abuse, the President should seriously consider recommending that Congress amend FECA to remove the agency’s independent litigating authority and rely on the Department of Justice to handle all litigation involving the FEC. There are also multiple instances of existing statutory provisions of FECA and the accompanying FEC regulations having been found unlawful or unconstitu- tional by federal court decisions, yet those statutory provisions remain in the U.S. Code and the implementing regulations remain in the Code of Federal Regula- tions.12 In such instances, those regulated by the law, from candidates to the public, have no way of knowing (without engaging in extensive legal research) whether particular statutory provisions and regulations are still applicable to their actions in the political arena. l The President should request that the commissioners on the FEC prepare such guidance. l In the event that the FEC fails to act, the President should direct the attorney general to prepare a guidance document from the Department of Justice for the public that outlines all of the FECA statutory provisions and FEC regulations that have been changed, amended, or voided by specific court decisions. Legislative Changes. While a President’s ability to make any changes at an independent agency like the FEC is limited,13 the President has the ability to make legislative recommendations to Congress. One of the most obvious changes that is needed is to end the current practice of allowing commissioners to remain as serving commissioners long after their term has expired, defying the clear intent of Congress in specifying that a commissioner can only serve a single term of six years. l The President should prioritize nominations to the FEC once commissioners reach the end of their terms and should be assisted by legislative language either eliminating or limiting overstays to a reasonable period of time to permit the vetting, nomination, and confirmation of successors. l The President should vigorously oppose all efforts, as proposed, for example, in Section 6002 of the “For the People Act of 2021,”14 to change the structure of the FEC to reduce the number of commissioners from six to five or another odd number. The current requirement of four votes to authorize an enforcement action, provide — 866 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise an advisory opinion, or issue regulations, ensures that there is bipartisan agreement before any action is taken and protects against the FEC being used as a political weapon. With only five commissioners, three members of the same political party could control the enforcement process of the agency, raising the potential of a powerful federal agency enforcing the law on a partisan basis against the members of the opposition political party. Efforts to impose a “nonpartisan” or so-called “inde- pendent” chair are impractical; the chair will inevitably be aligned with his or her appointing party, at least as a matter of perception. There are numerous other changes that should be considered in FECA and the FEC’s regulations. The overly restrictive limits on the ability of party com- mittees to coordinate with their candidates, for example, violates associational rights and unjustifiably interferes with the very purpose of political parties: to elect their candidates. l Raise contribution limits and index reporting requirements to inflation. Contribution limits should generally be much higher, as they hamstring candidates and parties while serving no practical anticorruption purpose. And a wide range of reporting requirements have not been indexed to inflation, clogging the public record and the FEC’s internal processes with small-dollar information of little use to the public. CONCLUSION When taking any action related to the FEC, the President should keep in mind that, as former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, the “greater problem at the FEC has been overenforcement,” not underenforcement as some critics falsely allege.15 As he correctly concludes, the FEC’s enforcement efforts “place a substan- tial burden on small committees and campaigns, and are having a chilling effect on some political speech…squeezing the life out of low level, volunteer politi- cal activity.”16 Commissioners have a duty to enforce FECA in a fair, nonpartisan, objective manner. But they must do so in a way that protects the First Amendment rights of the public, political parties, and candidates to fully participate in the political process. The President has the same duty to ensure that the Department of Justice enforces the law in a similar manner.

Trade

Weak

Vector: 57%

Pages: 863-865AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on prohibiting harmful event contracts to protect market integrity, while Project 2025's Trade section emphasizes deregulating capital markets, expanding investor access, and reducing SEC oversight—particularly regarding ESG and disclosure rules. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address accredited investor rules, private offerings, or ESG-related restrictions central to the Project 2025 policy."

Key themes:financial regulationmarket integritySEC oversight

— 831 — Financial Regulatory Agencies l Either democratize access to private offerings by broadening the definition of accredited investor for purposes of Regulation D or eliminate the accredited investor restriction altogether.15 l Allow traditional self-certification of accredited investor status for all Regulation D Rule 506 offerings. l Exempt small micro-offerings from registration requirements.16 l Exempt small and intermittent finders from broker–dealer registration requirements and provide a simplified registration process for private placement brokers.17 l Exempt peer-to-peer lending from federal and state securities laws and reduce the regulatory burden on Regulation CF debt securities. l Make the Title I Emerging Growth Company (EGC) exemptions permanent for all EGCs. l Reduce the regulatory burden on small broker–dealers and exempt privately held, non-custodial broker–dealers from the requirements to use a PCAOB- registered firm for their audits. Congress should: l Amend the Internal Revenue Code to disregard crowdfunding and Regulation A shareholders for purposes of the 100-shareholder limit for Subchapter S corporations.18 BETTER CAPITAL MARKETS To improve capital markets, the SEC should: l Preempt blue sky registration, qualification, and continuing reporting requirements for securities traded on established securities markets (including a national securities exchange or an alternative trading system).19 l Terminate the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) program.20 l Abolish Rule 144 and other regulations that restrict securities resales and instead require a company that has sold securities to provide sufficient current informa- tion to the market to permit reasonable investment decisions and secondary sales. — 832 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should: l Prohibit the SEC from requiring issuer disclosure of social, ideological, political, or “human capital” information that is not material to investors’ financial, economic, or pecuniary risks or returns. The proposed SEC climate change rule, which would quadruple the costs of being a public company, is particularly problematic.21 l Repeal the Dodd–Frank mandated disclosures relating to conflict minerals, mine safety, resource extraction, and CEO pay ratios.22 l Oppose efforts to redefine the purpose of business in the name of social justice; corporate social responsibility (CSR); stakeholder theory; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria; socially responsible investing (SRI); sustainability; diversity; business ethics; or common- good capitalism. l Prohibit securities regulators, including SROs, from promulgating rules or taking other actions that discriminate, either favorably or unfavorably, on the basis of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group. SEC ADMINISTRATION To enable it to achieve its core mission more effectively, the SEC should:23 l Publish better data on securities offerings, securities markets, and securities law enforcement and publish an annual data book of time series data on these matters. Specifically, the SEC Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (DERA) needs to do a much better job of collecting and reporting fundamental data regarding offerings, regulatory costs, violations, enforcement, investors, state regulator taxes, fees and activities, and other matters. l Ensure that SEC resources flow toward its core functions and away from ancillary and support functions or from missions that do not fall within the SEC’s statutory charge. l Ensure that any three SEC Commissioners are empowered to place an item on the agenda and to receive adequate staff support to do so even without the Chairman’s support.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Moore, Blake D.

Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act of 2026

119/hr/9722

Hershel Woody Williams National Medal of Honor Monument Location Act

119/hr/186

MAPWaters Act of 2025

119/hr/187

Back to All Bills