Select regulatory documents by category:
Solicitation of Contributions
Solicitation of contributions. This is in response to your letter in which you summarize your understanding of our telephone conversation relating to section (c) of rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business. As I noted during our conversation, the Board’s rules, including rule G-37, apply solely to brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”). The Board’s rulemaking authority, granted under Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, does not extend to issuers of municipal securities. Thus, rule G-37 does not impose any obligations upon issuers or officials of issuers. Although the Board appreciates your interest in not placing dealers and their associated persons in a position to violate their obligations under the rule, it is ultimately the responsibility of such dealers and associated persons, in consultation with appropriate compliance personnel, to ensure compliance with Board rules.
As you know, rule G-37(c) provides that no dealer or municipal finance professional shall solicit any person or political action committee to make any contribution, or shall coordinate any contributions, to an official of an issuer with which the dealer is engaging or is seeking to engage in municipal securities business. The Board has previously stated that this provision would:
prohibit a dealer and any municipal finance professional from soliciting . . . any other person or entity, to make contributions to an official of an issuer with which the dealer engages or is seeking to engage in municipal securities business or to coordinate (i.e., bundle) contributions. . .[*] [M]unicipal finance professionals may volunteer their personal services in other ways to political campaigns.[1]
You had sought guidance regarding what activities would be covered by this provision of the rule. As you noted in your letter, I had indicated that the term “solicit” is not explicitly defined for purposes of section (c) of the rule. I had stated that whether a particular activity can be characterized as a solicitation of a contribution for purposes of section (c) is dependent upon the facts and circumstances surrounding such activity. I had noted, however, that the rule does not prohibit or restrict municipal finance professionals from engaging in personal volunteer work, unless such work constituted solicitation or bundling of contributions for an official of an issuer with which the municipal finance professional’s dealer is engaging or seeking to engage in municipal securities business[2] Municipal finance professionals are therefore free to, among other things, solicit votes or other assistance for such an issuer official so long as the solicitation does not constitute a solicitation or coordination of contributions for the official. [3]
Whether a municipal finance professional is permitted by section (c) of the rule to indicate to third parties that someone is a “great candidate” or to provide a list of third parties for the candidate to call would be dependent upon all the facts and circumstances surrounding such action. The facts and circumstances that may be relevant for this purpose may include, among any number of other factors, whether the municipal finance professional has made an explicit or implicit reference to campaign contributions in his or her conversations with third parties whom the candidate may contact and whether the candidate contacts such third parties seeking campaign contributions. However, the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding any particular activity must be considered in determining whether such activity may constitute a solicitation of contributions for purposes of section (c) of the rule. Therefore, the Board cannot prescribe an exhaustive list of precautions that would assure that no violation of this section would occur as a result of such activity. MSRB interpretation of May 21, 1999.
__________
[1] MSRB Reports, Vol. 14, No. 3 (June 1994) at 5. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33868 (April 7, 1994), 59 FR 17621 (April 13, 1994). See also Questions and Answers Concerning Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business: Rule G-37, May 24, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book; MSRB Interpretation of November 7, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book; MSRB Interpretation of May 31, 1995, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book. Furthermore, the Board stated in its filing of the rule with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the rule’s “anti-solicitation and anti-bundling proscriptions are intended to prohibit covered parties from: (i) soliciting others, including spouses and family members, to make contributions to issuer officials; and (ii) coordinating, or soliciting others to coordinate, contributions to issuer officials in order to influence the awarding of municipal securities business.” SEC File No. SR-MSRB-94-2.
[2] See Question and Answer No. 24, May 24, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book; Question and Answer No. 3, August 18, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book. In addition, if the municipal finance professional used dealer resources or incurred expenses that could be considered contributions in the course of undertaking such volunteer work, the ban on municipal securities business under section (b) of the rule could be triggered.
[3] In upholding the constitutionality of rule G-37, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit observed that “municipal finance professionals are not in any way restricted from engaging in the vast majority of political activities, including making direct expenditures for the expression of their views, giving speeches, soliciting votes, writing books, or appearing at fundraising events.” Blount v. SEC, 61 F.3d 938, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1351 (1996). However, the Board has stated that hosting or paying to attend a fundraising event may constitute a contribution subject to section (b) of the rule. See Questions and Answers Nos. 24 and 29, May 24, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book.
[*][sentence deleted to reflect current rule provisions.]
G-15_4_20_99
Amendment Filed to Proposed Rule Change on Rule G-15(d)(ii) on Automated Confirmation/Acknowledgement
On April 16, 1999, the Board filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") an amendment to its proposed rule change on Board rule G-15(d)(ii) on automated confirmation/acknowledgment of customer transactions.1 The proposed rule change was initially filed with the Commission on April 1, 1998.2 If approved by the Commission, it would allow dealers to comply with rule G-15 (d)(ii) by using the services of "qualified vendors" for confirmation/acknowledgment of Delivery Versus Payment/Receipt Versus Payment (DVP/RVP) customer transactions. Currently, without the proposed rule change, only clearing agencies that are registered with the Commission may be used to obtain the required confirmation/acknowledgment.
The amendment is comprised of two minor changes to the language of the proposed rule change. These modifications were requested by the Commission to make the Board’s proposed rule change more consistent with similar proposed rule changes on the same subject that have been filed with the Commission by other Self-Regulatory Organizations. One change concerns proposed subparagraph G-15(d)(ii)(B)(2)(C), which requires that, in order to maintain status as a qualified vendor, the vendor must file certain Auditor’s Reports annually with the Commission staff. The original requirement states that to remain qualified the vendor must obtain a statement from the Commission staff that the Commission staff does not object to the Auditor’s Report. The amendment states that the Auditor’s Report must be one "which is not deemed unacceptable" by the Commission staff.
The second language change relates to subparagraph G-15(d)(ii)(B)(2)(B), which contains the requirement that a Qualified Vendor certify that its confirmation/acknowledgement system meets certain qualifications. The amendment clarifies that this certification is to be made to the customers of the Qualified Vendor and removes the previous requirement that the certification be done annually.
April 20, 1999
Text of Proposed Rule Change (as amended)3
G-15. Confirmation, Clearance and Settlement of Transactions with Customers
(a) - (c) No change
(d) Delivery/Receipt vs. Payment Transactions.
(i) No change.
(ii) Requirement for Confirmation/Acknowledgment.
(A) Use of Registered Clearing Agency or Qualified Vendor. Except as provided in this paragraph (ii) of rule G-15(d), no broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer shall effect a customer transaction for settlement on a delivery vs. payment or receipt vs. payment (DVP/RVP) basis unless the facilities of a C
clearing Aagencyregistered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (registered clearing agency)or Qualified Vendor are used for automated confirmation and acknowledgment of the transaction. Each broker, dealer and municipal securities dealer executing a customer transaction on a DVP/RVP basis shall: (A) ensure that the customer has the capability, either directly or through its clearing agent, to acknowledge transactions in an automated confirmation/acknowledgment system operated by aregisteredCclearing Aagency or Qualified Vendor; (B) submit or cause to be submitted to aregisteredCclearing Aagency or Qualified Vendor all information and instructions required by theregisteredCclearing Aagency or Qualified Vendor for the production of a confirmation that can be acknowledged by the customer or the customer’s clearing agent; and (C) submit such transaction information to the automated confirmation/acknowledgment system on the date of execution of such transaction; provided that a transaction that is not eligible for automated confirmation and acknowledgment through the facilities of aregisteredCclearing Aagency shall not be subject to this paragraph (ii).(B) Definitions for Rule G-15(d)(ii).
(1) "Clearing Agency" shall mean a clearing agency as defined in Section 3(a)(23) of the Act that is registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 17A(b)(2) of the Act or has obtained from the Commission an exemption from registration granted specifically to allow the clearing agency to provide confirmation/acknowledgment services.
(2) "Qualified Vendor" shall mean a vendor of electronic confirmation and acknowledgment services that:
(A) for each transaction subject to this rule: (i) delivers a trade record to a Clearing Agency in the Clearing Agency’s format; (ii) obtains a control number for the trade record from the Clearing Agency; (iii) cross-references the control number to the confirmation and subsequent acknowledgment of the trade; and (iv) electronically delivers any acknowledgment received on the trade to the Clearing Agency and includes the control number when delivering the acknowledgment of the trade to the Clearing Agency;
(B) certifies to its customers: (i) with respect to its electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment system, that it has a capacity requirements evaluation and monitoring process that allows the vendor to formulate current and anticipated estimated capacity requirements; (ii) that its electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment system has sufficient capacity to process the volume of data that it reasonably anticipates to be entered into its electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment service during the upcoming year; (iii) that its electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment system has formal contingency procedures, that the entity has followed a formal process for reviewing the likelihood of contingency occurrences, and that the contingency protocols are reviewed, tested, and updated on a regular basis; (iv) that its electronic confirmation/acknowledgment system has a process for preventing, detecting, and controlling any potential or actual systems or computer operations failures, including any failure to interface with a Clearing Agency as described in rule G-15(d)(ii)(B)(2)(A), above, and that its procedures designed to protect against security breaches are followed; and (v) that its current assets exceed its current liabilities by at least five hundred thousand dollars;
(C) when it begins providing such services, and annually thereafter, submits an Auditor’s Report to the Commission staff which is not deemed unacceptable by the Commission staff. (An Auditor’s Report will be deemed unacceptable if it contains any findings of material weakness.);
(D) notifies the Commission staff immediately in writing of any material change to its confirmation/affirmation systems. (For purposes of this subparagraph (D) "material change" means any changes to the vendor’s systems that significantly affect or have the potential to significantly affect its electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment systems, including: changes that: (i) affect or potentially affect the capacity or security of its electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment system; (ii) rely on new or substantially different technology; (iii) provide a new service as part of the Qualified Vendor’s electronic trade confirmation/acknowledgment system; or (iv) affect or have the potential to adversely affect the vendor’s confirmation/acknowledgment system’s interface with a Clearing Agency.);
(E) notifies the Commission staff in writing if it intends to cease providing services;
(F) provides the Board with copies of any submissions to the Commission staff made pursuant to subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) of this rule G-15(d)(ii)(B)(2) within ten business days.
(G) promptly supplies supplemental information regarding its confirmation/acknowledgment system when requested by the Commission staff or the Board.
(3) "Auditor’s Report" shall mean a written report which is prepared by competent, independent, external audit personnel in accordance with the standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Information Systems Audit and Control Association and which: (A) verifies the certifications described in subparagraph (d)(ii)(B)(2)(B) of this rule G-15; (B) contains a risk analysis of all aspects of the entity’s information technology systems including, computer operations, telecommunications, data security, systems development, capacity planning and testing, and contingency planning and testing; and (C) contains the written response of the entity’s management to the information provided pursuant to (A) and (B) of this subparagraph (d)(ii)(B)(3) of rule G-15.
(C) Disqualification of Vendor. A broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer using a Qualified Vendor that ceases to be qualified under the definition in rule G-15(d)(ii)(B)(2) shall not be deemed in violation of this rule G-15(d)(ii) if it ceases using such vendor promptly upon receiving notice that the vendor is no longer qualified.
(iii) No change
(e) No change.
ENDNOTES
1. File No. SR-MSRB-98-6, Amendment No. 1.
2. See Securities Exchange Act No. 39833 (April 6, 1998).
3. Underlining indicates additions; strikethrough denotes deletions.
 |
 |
Copyright 2000 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions of Use.
Application of Rule G-37 to Presidential Campaigns of Issuer Officials
In response to numerous calls on this subject, the Board wishes to reiterate its position on the application of rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business, to Presidential campaigns of issuer officials. The Board directs persons interested in contributing to an issuer official's Presidential campaign to the MSRB Interpretation of May 31, 1995 (the “1995 Interpretive Letter”).[1]
Rule G-37, among other things, prohibits a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer (“dealer”) from engaging in municipal securities business with an issuer within two years after any contribution to an official of an issuer made by the dealer; any municipal finance professional associated with the dealer; or any political action committee controlled by the dealer or any municipal finance professional. In the 1995 Interpretive Letter, the Board noted that rule G-37 is applicable to contributions given to officials of issuers who seek election to federal office, such as the Presidency. The Board also explained that the only exception to rule G-37's absolute prohibition on business is for certain contributions made to issuer officials by municipal finance professionals.[2] Specifically, contributions by such persons to officials of issuers would not invoke application of the prohibition if the municipal finance professional is entitled to vote for such official, and provided that any contributions by such municipal finance professional do not exceed, in total, $250 to each official, per election. In the example of an issuer official running for President, any municipal finance professional in the country can contribute the de minimis amount to the official's Presidential campaign without causing a ban on municipal securities business with that issuer.
The Board previously has stated that, if an issuer official is involved in a primary election prior to the general election, a municipal finance professional who is entitled to vote for such official may contribute up to $250 for the primary election and $250 for the general election to each such official.[3] In the context of a Presidential campaign, the Board notes that the $250 de minimis amount applies to the entire primary process, up through and including the national party convention. While rule G-37 allows a municipal finance professional to then contribute another $250 to the party candidate's general election campaign fund, the Board understands that a Presidential candidate who has accepted public funding for the general election is prohibited under federal law from accepting any contributions to further his or her general election campaign.
Finally, the Board also notes that rule G-37(c) provides that no dealer or municipal finance professional shall solicit any person or political action committee to make any contributions, or shall coordinate any contributions, to an official of an issuer with which the dealer is engaging or is seeking to engage in municipal securities business.
[1] The 1995 Interpretive Letter is reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 1999) at 201-203. It also is available from the MSRB Rules/Interpretive Letters section of the Board's Web site at www.msrb.org.
[2] The term “municipal finance professional” is a defined term in rule G-37(g)(iv). The Board wishes to remind dealers that the term is broader than persons directly involved in municipal securities activities and may include certain supervisors, including in the case of a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer other than a bank dealer, the Chief Executive Officer, and in the case of a bank dealer, the officer or officers designated by the board of directors of the bank as responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the bank's municipal securities dealer activities. It also may include members of the dealer's executive or management committee or similarly situated officials. See Question and Answer number 2 dated May 24, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 1999) at 192; MSRB Reports , Vol. 14, No. 3 (June 1994) at 13; Question and Answer number 3 dated September 9, 1997, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 1999) at 199. The Questions and Answers also are available from the MSRB Rules/Interpretive Notice section of the Board's Web site at www.msrb.org.
[3] See Question and Answer number 10 dated May 24, 1994, reprinted in MSRB Rule Book (January 1, 1999) at 192; MSRB Reports , Vol. 14, No. 3 (June 1994) at 13. The Question and Answer also is available from the MSRB Rules/Interpretive Notice section of the Board's Web site at www.msrb.org.
