Table of Contents
NASAA state securities regulators now sits at the center of one of the most consequential regulatory battles in modern financial history.
According to NASAA, federal legislative proposals affecting crypto, private capital formation, also known as Reg. D offerings, and artificial intelligence threaten safeguards that have protected retail investors for more than a century.
NASAA is facing concerted campaigns to preempt state regulators from regulating crypto, private deals, and the use of Artificial Intelligence. If the effort to prevent state regulators from protecting financial consumers defrauded on crypto, Reg D and AI succeeds, the U.S. would be losing a second layer of regulation at a time when federal regulation has been greatly diminished by Supreme Court and executive branch decisions.
Since NASAA was founded in 1919, the U.S. has benefited from a dual‑layered system in which state and federal oversight operate together. But recent bills risk collapsing that structure by replacing state review and active enforcement with more centralized—and often weaker—federal mechanisms. This article explores the contours of that fight, the consumer‑group backing NASAA has received, the political dynamics behind the conflict, and whether NASAA’s cautious public posture strengthens or weakens its hand.
Consumer and Advocacy Groups Fighting NASAA’s Preemption
Consumer organizations have increasingly echoed NASAA’s warnings about preempting NASAA state securities regulators. A coalition of more than 80 organizations—including the National Consumer Law Center, Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, Consumer Reports, and the Consumer Federation of America—has opposed federal crypto bills that “undermine state regulators’ ability to protect” investors, according to the coalition’s 2025 statement. Their backing is materially helpful: these groups, according to advocacy leaders, introduce political pressure, shape public perception, and humanize what might otherwise appear to be an insular regulatory dispute. Their messaging reframes the debate from bureaucratic turf to consumer safety, broadening NASAA’s coalition and strengthening its credibility in Congress.
Consumer Groups Support NASAA State Securities Regulators
Organization / Coalition | Position | |
82-group coalition led by NCLC & others opposing CLARITY Act (2025) | ||
AFR + allied consumer-advocacy groups | ||
National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) + public-interest groups | ||
28 academics + legal-expert coalition | ||
AFL-CIO (labor-finance interest) | ||
Crypto Clash
Crypto regulation produced the earliest and sharpest confrontation between federal agencies and state securities regulators. According to NASAA’s account of Operation CryptoSweep, states took decisive action against fraudulent ICOs and digital‑asset schemes, initiating more than 70 investigations before federal agencies undertook comparable efforts. NASAA told Congress in 2022 that NASAA state securities regulators had pursued “hundreds” of digital‑asset enforcement cases before federal agencies entered the field in meaningful volume. Their argument: emerging digital‑asset markets require more regulatory layers, not fewer, and federal preemption would widen enforcement gaps precisely where fraud proliferates.
Federal Push To Preempt NASAA State Securities Regulators
Digital‑asset market‑structure drafts frequently contain provisions that look technical but carry sweeping implications. According to NASAA’s analyses, modifying definitions of “investment contract,” “digital asset,” or “ancillary asset” could effectively strip states of registration and enforcement authority. State regulators report—based on NASAA enforcement surveys—that they identify red flags earlier than federal agencies because they receive local complaints directly and understand community‑level investment patterns. Removing that capacity, NASAA argues, is regulatory malpractice hidden within legislative complexity.
Capital Formation
Federal proposals to expand private‑offering exemptions form the second battleground. NASAA and consumer groups warn that exempt offerings historically produce high fraud rates, citing long‑standing patterns documented in state and NASAA enforcement reports. State securities regulators routinely intercept misleading claims and require corrections before issuers can market to the public. According to NASAA, eliminating this review process would expose unsophisticated investors to opaque, illiquid, and sometimes deceptive offerings. NASAA maintains that capital formation and investor protection are compatible—but only when regulators retain meaningful oversight tools.
Why State Review Matters
State examiners’ proximity to local businesses gives them visibility that federal agencies lack. NASAA says many small issuers operate regionally, and state regulators understand local economic conditions, promoter histories, and cross‑jurisdictional patterns of misconduct. Eliminating state review wouldn't improve efficiency; it would remove a quality‑control layer that prevents predatory offerings from reaching the market. Federal preemption, NASAA contends, would turn investor protection into a distant, centralized process unsupported by on‑the‑ground intelligence.
AI Flashpoint
Artificial intelligence is now a rapidly intensifying front in the battle over NASAA state securities regulators. According to draft federal proposals circulated in 2025, some bills include moratoria on enforcing or enacting state AI laws for up to a decade. NASAA warns these provisions would “disarm” the states just as deepfakes, synthetic identities, and AI‑generated scams escalate. States have historically been first responders to emerging fraud patterns, NASAA says, and freezing their authority in the AI era risks unprecedented investor harm.
Political Lines
NASAA Low Profile
NASAA has indeed maintained a low public profile. According to NASAA’s communications practices, the association emphasizes formal comment letters, technical analyses, and enforcement results rather than media campaigns. This restraint preserves bipartisan credibility and regulatory neutrality. NASAA does occasionally highlight its achievements—such as announcing Operation CryptoSweep or publishing annual enforcement reports documenting significant fraud disruptions—but avoids overt political messaging. NASAA leadership says the strongest influence on NASAA state securities regulators comes from data, results, and regulatory expertise, not public confrontation.
Conclusion
The fight over NASAA state securities regulators reflects a larger national question: should emerging financial markets be governed through centralized federal structures or a multilayered system that leverages both state and federal capabilities? NASAA argues that history proves the latter is safer, especially for retail investors exposed to crypto, private offerings, and AI‑driven scams. Consumer groups increasingly agree. As Congress reshapes financial regulation, the outcome will determine whether the U.S. maintains a resilient, multi‑tiered investor‑protection framework—or replaces it with a fragile system more vulnerable to fraud.
FAQs
What is NASAA and why does it matter to retail investors?
NASAA is the umbrella organization for state and provincial securities regulators across the United States, Canada, Mexico, and U.S. territories. These regulators license brokers and investment advisers, register many securities offerings, investigate complaints, and enforce “blue-sky” laws designed to prevent fraud and protect retail investors. Because NASAA regulators operate locally, they often respond faster and understand local market and investor conditions — a protection layer many small or regional investors rely on, beyond what federal regulators can provide.
What kinds of securities firms or advisers does NASAA regulate at the state level?
State regulators affiliated with NASAA oversee broker-dealers, Registered Investment Adviser firms with up to $100 million AUM, and individual investment-advisor representatives whether registered with state or SEC, depending on size and jurisdiction. They also license securities-sales representatives, register certain investment offerings, and audit firm practices and record-keeping — especially for local and smaller-scale issuers.
How is state regulation different from federal oversight (e.g. SEC)?
The regulatory system in the U.S. is layered: federal and state regulators share oversight. NASAA members enforce state laws (so-called “blue-sky” laws) that complement federal securities laws. Because state regulators are local, they often receive investor complaints first, conduct small-issuer reviews, and enforce compliance in ways federal regulators may not — making them more accessible and nimble.
Can companies raise money under state securities laws rather than using federal registration?
Yes. NASAA and state regulators often oversee private or regional capital raises for small and mid-size companies. These local offerings undergo state-level review rather than complex federal registration, enabling smaller firms to access capital under state-regulation frameworks. That said — those offerings still must comply with disclosure and fraud-prevention requirements enforced by state regulators, serving as a guardrail for investors.
What protections does state-level regulation provide that federal regulators may not?
State securities regulators provide: licensing of financial professionals; registration or review of local or private offerings; on-the-ground enforcement against fraud; faster responses to investor complaints; and investor education campaigns. Because they are closer to the “street level,” they detect scams earlier and enforce laws more vigorously for retail and small-market investors — often those most vulnerable.
If I invest across multiple states or online, does state regulation still protect me?
Yes. Even when investments cross state lines or involve online platforms, state securities regulators maintain authority over conduct in their jurisdictions. NASAA-member agencies license firms, review offerings, and can investigate complaints tied to activity within their state. This dual-layer oversight — federal plus state — offers a broader safety net for investors than federal regulation alone.
Where can I check if a broker or investment adviser is properly registered and in good standing under state regulation
?
You can locate your state securities regulator via NASAA’s directory. State regulators also maintain licensing and disciplinary records for broker-dealers, investment advisers, and their agents. If you’re in doubt, contact your state regulator for verification — especially before investing in offerings offered through non-traditional or small issuers.
