How SEC Gag Orders Silence the Accused
"They don't want the defendant to tell this side of the story," says Clark Neily of the Cato Institute.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) doesn't just regulate the country's financial institutions: As a censor of books, it has no peer. Take its successful suppression of Bob's memoir.
In the early 2000s, the pseudonymous Bob developed a new financial technology to make a lot of money in Texas' energy markets. He made so much money, in fact, that the SEC became suspicious and sued him. To avoid the ruinous penalties and potential criminal charges he was facing, Bob agreed to a favorable settlement with the agency.
A nonnegotiable term of that settlement, and all SEC settlement agreements, is that Bob must never publicly profess his innocence. That's why we can't even use his real name in this story. Given that 98 percent of the people sued by the SEC settle with the agency, these gag orders have proven remarkably effective at shutting down critical speech.
Bob maintains that his business was perfectly legal. He would have happily proved that in court if not for the severe penalties he was facing. He's so adamant about this that he wrote an entire book defending himself and attacking the SEC for its accusations.
In 2018, he went about getting his book published through the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
"I read the memoir and thought, 'This story needs to be told,'" says Clark Neily, senior vice president for legal studies at Cato. But publishing the book would open up Bob, and potentially Cato, to legal liability for violating the agency's gag order.
"This guy has been through hell with the SEC and [the Department of Justice] and didn't want to put a target on him again," says Neily.
So in 2019, Cato sued the SEC. It argued that any attempt to enforce the commission's gag orders violates the First Amendment's free speech protections.
It lost. In June 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Cato Institute did not have standing to sue. That means Bob's book will go unpublished.
It also means that his and countless other accusations of SEC maliciousness and incompetence will never see the light of day.
"They don't want the defendant to tell this side of the story," says Neily. "They know that virtually every defendant is going to settle, so they have a strong interest in making sure that no one ever gets to assess the quality of their investigations or the validity of their allegations."
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "[REDACTED]."
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The process is the punishment, And if you don't voluntarily take the beating, we'll break your legs.
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
.
Reading this article:>>>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
I made $30,508 in only five weeks operating part-time proper from my apartment. When I misplaced my final commercial enterprise I were given worn-out proper away and fortunately I observed this task on line and with that I am capable of begin reaping masses proper thru my house. Anyone can obtain this pinnacle degree profession and make extra cash on line by:-
.
See Here:>>>> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
Sounds ripe for a trip to SCOTUS.
One would think, but they're quite picky in the cases they take.
If they *did* take the case, would they focus just on the standing issue? Because that seems to be the angle the appeals court went for - not the substance of the 1st Amendment claim.
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (neh-64) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://netcash94.tk
It's also a process that most cannot afford to fight with firepower even marginally equivalent to the SEC's, much less risk the crushing penalties and diagorgement guaranteed to be crammed down the throats of those daring to fight and lose. And highlighting the SEC's theater of the absurd, bifurcation settlements, in which defendants settle, WITHOUT ADMITTING, liability while reserving financial remedies for the court to decide, typically prevent defendants from contesting the complaint's allegations when the court decides those remedies. In other words, to admit them for all practical purposes.
The SEC is an agency increasingly populated by marginally competent, oftentimes breathtakingly lazy staff wielding virtually unchecked power that's rarely exposed by the sanitation of a fair trial. It may be the government’s greatest current embarrassment, no small thing.
Just wait til Texas and Oklahoma join
Why would it be an embarrassment? If anything other people in government will look at this and be like "Yeah! Screwed over the little guy and he can't even complain about it! Beautiful!"
If CATO had the balls to publish, they would have standing.
you have to break the law to have standing kind of backwards and dangerous isn't it.
If they published and they were prosecuted, CATO could claim it was moot.
"In 2018, he went about getting his book published through the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank."
Has he heard of the internet?
Sounds like the financial aristocracy don't want parvenus teaching plebs the cheat codes.
That looks like something Elizabeth Warren would say.
How about Pelosi? And I don't think Warren would object to a ban on a free-market capitalist book - ever.
"Bob maintains that his business was perfectly legal."
I would love to see what would happen if a businessman being targeted by the SEC just made all of his records publicly available.
The government should have pressed criminal charges if the circumstances warranted, and Bob should have insisted on a jury trial.
Well, but our benighted government didn’t want to press criminal charges because they knew they were likely going to lose. So, instead, the blackmailed Bob and got what they wanted. It’s a simple application of game theory and it’s Americans that are getting screwed.
But ignorant, Mein Kampf-hugging, inbred clingers like you don’t see anything wrong with how progressive government works.
It would be in the public's interest to know both sides of these sorts of stories.
The defendant's account may be dismissed as one-sided, but then so may the government's account. Theoretically, by having both accounts, the public could figure out how the SEC enforcement regime is working (or not working).
Also, given the government's massive publicity apparatus, including sympathetic media, shouldn't they be able to refute criticism rather than avoid criticism altogether?
It would also be in the public interest to send more financial fraudsters and snake oil salesmen to prison. Until that happens, why waste time worrying about whether some white collar criminals don't like some terms of their privileged treatment?
Ah, yes, the "he must be guilty" exception to the First Amendment. I'd forgotten about that one.
I propose that solely the guilty be imprisoned.
Is that a South Texas College of Law Houston degree talking?
In your mind, I suppose everyone guilty of financial fraud is a Republican from a rural area of Oklahoma or Wyoming.
Nobody ever commits fraud in an enlightened, modern city like New York, unless they're Donald Trump.
Other than that, they're all squeaky clean.
That should be flagged for excessive honesty.
Does that include inside traders like Nancy Pelosi?
The practical trade-off has appeared to be that white-collar (securities fraud) criminals often dodge the jail time they deserve in in exchange for a system of punishment that involves consent orders.
If putting more thieves who use keyboards in prison is to be considered, that might be a great idea. Until then, I am disinclined to credit whining from those who get preferential treatment in our criminal justice system.
If only there were some way other than censorship to enforce the laws against fraud.
No, I guess it's a binary choice.
I propose criminal prosecution rather than censorship.
Really? You support criminal prosecution for fraud? That's the kind of useful political insight which distinguishes you from the mass of deplorables.
Isn't the real solution to this just to prohibit the government from ever demanding gag orders as part of a settlement or judgment?
“In its worst state an intolerable evil” and those who work for the sec and assist in this are thieves.