Advisors4Advisors

Financial regulation has always been a polarized political swamp, but the current-day Capitol financial legislative agenda is unusually fraught. A coalition of crypto, alternative-investment managers, and artificial-intelligence (AI) firms is actively pursuing federal legislation that would curtail or eliminate state securities enforcement authority. At the same time, federal enforcement recently was constrained by the Supreme Court rulings and executive branch, materially reducing the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This confluence of  factors places investor protection at higher risk. 

Against this setting, NASAA staff in February 2026 assumed responsibility for the daily operations of the IAR CE program, regulating about half of the nation's investment adviser representatives. 

NASAA, a 106-year-old not for profit association for state securities regulators, is being threatened by  

In this class, Michael J. Canning, a public policy expert with deep experience at the intersection of Congress, regulators, industry, and advocacy groups on financial regulation, capital markets, consumer protection, and innovation, addresses the situation affecting investment fiduciaries.

As a former spokesman for NASAA for a decade and its director of policy and government affairs, Mike offers valuable perspective on the regulatory environment affecting financial professionals. 

State securities regulators always served as the frontline defense for retail investors—investigating fraud, policing misconduct, and responding rapidly to emerging risks. That authority is now under threat. This live class examines the growing threat of federal preemption of state financial regulators and what it could mean for investors, advisers, and fiduciary accountability.

From a Washington, D.C. perspective, Michael J. Canning walks participants through the policy landscape surrounding federal efforts to limit or override state enforcement authority, including proposals such as the CLARITY Act and related preemption initiatives. While often framed as “regulatory harmonization” or “innovation-friendly reform,” these measures could materially weaken state regulators’ ability to pursue fraud cases—particularly in fast-moving areas like cryptocurrency, digital assets, and emerging financial technologies.

The course explores how cryptocurrency fraud has proliferated, why state regulators have often been the first responders, and how preemption could reduce consumer protections at precisely the moment risks are increasing. Participants will examine enforcement gaps that may arise if state authority is narrowed, delayed, or displaced, and why those gaps matter for fiduciaries advising retail clients.

The program also addresses artificial intelligence regulation, including competing federal and state approaches, and the growing push to preempt state-level AI oversight. Advisors will learn why AI-related preemption debates extend beyond technology policy and directly affect disclosure, suitability, supervision, and client reliance risks.

Rather than treating these issues as abstract political debates, the class shows advisors how to frame them as ethical and fiduciary challenges. Investment adviser representatives and RIA owners must understand how regulatory structure influences investor outcomes, enforcement credibility, and public trust. When consumer protections are weakened upstream, fiduciary responsibility does not disappear—it intensifies.

This session equips advisors with the regulatory context needed to recognize consumer-harm risks, ask better questions, and exercise professional judgment in an environment where regulatory authority itself is contested.

Learning Objectives 

The learning objectives are likely to change as federal crypto and AI legislation is proposed in the days before the class, but participating in this live event advisors enables you to learn to:  

• Explain the historical role of state securities regulators in protecting retail investors.

• Identify how federal preemption proposals could limit state enforcement authority.

• Describe the stated goals and unresolved risks associated with the CLARITY Act.

• Better understand how reduced state oversight may affect detection of cryptocurrency fraud.

• Recognize why state regulators have been central to crypto-related enforcement actions.

• Evaluate how regulatory preemption can increase consumer harm without eliminating fiduciary duties.

• Distinguish between federal and state approaches to AI regulation affecting advisors.

• Assess how AI preemption efforts may impact disclosure, supervision, and liability insurance risks.

• Apply fiduciary judgment when advising clients amid regulatory uncertainty and enforcement gaps.

• Identify ethical considerations for advisors when investor protections are weakened by policy changes.