Trump administration is moving to scrap a rule intended to prevent private equity firms from bribing public officials following a series of pay-to-play scandals.

Last Thursday, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) moved to repeal a rule that bars investment advisers from receiving compensation for providing advisory services to a government client for two years after the adviser or one of its covered associates makes a prohibited political contribution to certain elected officials or candidates.

The SEC argues that Rule 206(4)-5, part of the Investment Advisers Act, has infringed on “free speech” and produced some unintended consequences since its adoption in 2010.

The rule prohibits “covered associates” of investment advisers from providing compensated advisory services to government clients for two years after making political contributions to certain candidates or elected officials. Federal candidates are generally exempt unless they also hold a relevant state office. The rule also restricts certain gifts and other contributions.

The definition of covered associates is broad and includes a lookback period for employees who join an investment advisory firm.

As a result, many firms have interpreted the provision broadly and applied it across their workforce. The rule also includes anti-circumvention provisions that extend to placement agents and other third parties.

While the rule was prompted largely by abuses involving private equity firms, it applies more broadly to investment advisers across the financial industry, including venture capital and hedge funds.

Former Obama-era SEC Commissioner Troy Paredes argued in 2010 that the rule was intentionally broad.

State and local prosecutors had often struggled to prove a direct quid pro quo in pay-to-play cases, leading the SEC to view a federal prohibition as a more effective deterrent.

The SEC ultimately voted unanimously to adopt the rule in 2010.

Rather than proposing a replacement, the SEC now argues that existing federal, state and local laws are sufficient to address pay-to-play practices.

The agency said its proposal seeks to address unintended consequences of the rule, including investment advisers and employees being effectively prevented from making political contributions because of firms’ compliance policies.

Market participants have also argued that the rule is overly burdensome and complicated and effectively creates a strict-liability standard, according to a JD Supra report.

The commission believes existing protections—including anti-fraud provisions, fiduciary obligations, compliance requirements and codes of ethics—can adequately address pay-to-play concerns while giving investment advisers greater flexibility to tailor their policies to the specific risks they face.

As a result, the SEC is proposing to repeal Rule 206(4)-5 entirely rather than amend it. The proposal would also make corresponding changes to the recordkeeping requirements for investment advisers.