Loading…
This entity appears on both sides of lobbying disclosures. The firm tab shows registrant-reported income; the client tab shows client-reported lobbying spend. Contract awards are separate and are not included here.
Lobbying Income
—
Filings
6
Unique Clients
1
Active Period
2025–2026
Registrant-reported income from clients on LDA filings
Largest clients by registrant-reported income
Government entities explicitly identified as targets in LDA filings
Most frequently reported lobbying issues
Bill numbers found in source-reported LDA specific issue text; broad topic matches are excluded
GENIUS Act
2025 · third_quarter · Client: FEDERAL MONEY SERVICES BUSINESS ASSOCIATION INC.
S. 1582, GENIUS Act (payment stablecoin licensing). In early July, 2025, FedMSB sent a Congress letter and a technical amendment urging targeted changes so the bill modernizes payments without displacing the MSB framework. Requested four clarifications: (1) affirm that non-bank stablecoin issuance/redemption is money transmission under 31 CFR 1010.100(ff) and remains subject to MSB registration/compliance; (2) codify FinCENs primary AML authority; (3) preserve state Money Transmitter Licenses (MTLs) from federal preemption; and (4) revise the bills terminology to treat stablecoins as a digital payment instrument, not a generic digital asset, to avoid regulatory overlap and misclassification. Rationale included concerns about preemption, duplicative/conflicting regimes, and concentration of discretionary licensing authority (e.g., OCC) that could invite politicization. Overall position: modernize, dont replace-integrate stablecoins into the existing federal-state MSB supervisory structure.
Client expense: — · Firm income: —
Matched citations: S. 1582
GENIUS Act
2025 · second_quarter · Client: FEDERAL MONEY SERVICES BUSINESS ASSOCIATION INC.
S. 1582, GENIUS Act (payment stablecoin licensing). On June 26, 2025, FedMSB sent a Congress letter and a technical amendment urging targeted changes so the bill modernizes payments without displacing the MSB framework. Requested four clarifications: (1) affirm that non-bank stablecoin issuance/redemption is money transmission under 31 CFR 1010.100(ff) and remains subject to MSB registration/compliance; (2) codify FinCENs primary AML authority; (3) preserve state Money Transmitter Licenses (MTLs) from federal preemption; and (4) revise the bills terminology to treat stablecoins as a digital payment instrument, not a generic digital asset, to avoid regulatory overlap and misclassification. Rationale included concerns about preemption, duplicative/conflicting regimes, and concentration of discretionary licensing authority (e.g., OCC) that could invite politicization. Overall position: modernize, dont replace-integrate stablecoins into the existing federal-state MSB supervisory structure.
Client expense: — · Firm income: —
Matched citations: S. 1582
Source: Senate LDA