I'm good. I'll figure it out. Alright. So we have I guess, welcome to the, real quick staff open meeting, this morning, and, we'll go ahead and call it to order. Vice chair Walden, you wanna move the one item we have today? Yes. Thank you. I move item one for discussion. Alright. Securities. Good morning, chair, vice chair, and commissioners. Thank you for scheduling the staff meeting on such short notice. All of you have busy schedules today, so I'll be brief. As you know, the Federal Digital Asset Market Clarity Act,
also known as the Clarity Act, is currently pending before the U. S. Senate Banking Committee. I've been informed that markup of the bill is tentatively set for next week. This is a complicated bill that covers many areas. However, the issue we're raising with you is a simple one. There's substantial concern that the current language of the bill could be be used to argue that state securities regulators, such as the Commission, are preempted from investigating and enforcing fraud issues on matters covered by the Clarity Act.
In other words, if the Clarity Act passes in its current form, if an Arizona investor is then defrauded on the security covered by it, the commission might not be able to investigate, enforce or get restitution for that defrauded investor. We would probably not even be able to go to court to stop the entity from defrauding other investors. The commission would lose its authority and jurisdiction to stop those types of actions and Senate. Last month, 31 states as diverse as Mississippi,
Ohio, New Mexico, and Nevada signed a letter raising those concerns. Due to logistical and time constraints, we were not able to bring it to the commission at that time. However, with bill markup scheduled for next week, there's another opportunity to raise our concerns. Several other states who were also not able to sign are now considering joining it. I should be clear on one point. We're not asking the commission to stand to take a stand or pine on the substance of the Clarity Act. We're not looking to expand our jurisdiction.
All we're seeking is to have it made clear that the bill does not take away the commission's jurisdiction to protect the citizens of Arizona from securities fraud. Thus, I ask the commission to authorize the Securities Division to sign on to the March 12 letter, which has previously been provided to your offices, for that acknowledgment to be sent to Congress and to allow us to continue to assist and protect Arizona citizens from fraud. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Commissioner, questions, comments? Commissioner Marcus Peterson.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your due diligence and paying attention to this issue so closely. I think it's important, and we'll be supporting your effort. Alright. Mister Thompson? I have no questions. Thank you, Mark. Vice chair Walden. I seem to be having technical issues. I I apologize for that. The screen went out. I don't have any questions. I think that it will be, important that we send this letter and be part of this effort to keep the state's ability to to go after fraud on our own. And, I agree with everything that mister Janelle said.
K. Thank you. Commissioner Lopez? No question. Alright. I'm going to be in support of this as well, but I do have a a question of what if, and that is what if it does pass? What who regulates that at that point? If the Clarity Act passes as written, the primary agencies that have jurisdiction would be the SEC and the CFTC. As as I say, it's not crystal clear that we don't have jurisdiction, but there are enough questions raised that we might not. What I suspect would happen is we we would try to bring an enforcement case
against someone, and they would immediately argue that we're preempted, and we would be in court for a while on that issue, if not some other state. Right. And I which would certainly slow down our fraud efforts and preempt them if we lose that one. Okay. Very good. I guess if there's nothing else, vice chair Wallen, do you mind making a motion? Yes. I I make a actually, mister Janelle, what was what was what did you call the the letter? The March 2026 letter from state securities regulators to the US Senate Banking Committee.
Okay. To so the motion would be to join onto that into that letter. Okay. Because we can't just move it to a vote without that specification. So I move, that we join on to the March 12 letter with the banking committee to keep our for states to be able to continue to combat fraud on their without the federal government. Is that clear clear enough? Chair, vice chair, commissioners, yes. I'm clear on what the instructions would be. Okay. With that, we'll go ahead and and cast the votes and those online if you just wanna
give me a thumbs up or something or yays. I vote aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Maybe. There we go. Alright. And with a vote of five ayes, zero nays, the item passes and that's it for the staff meeting. So thank you very much, mister Donnell, and we are adjourned. Thank you.