Over the weekend, the late Friday headline snuck through that the SEC and Elon Musk had once again agreed to a settlement over Musk's use of Twitter, and the subsequent allegation that Musk should be held in contempt of court for violating a previous settlement. Now, despite Judge Allison Nathan signing off on a second settlement, one voice out of the SEC is speaking out against what he sees as a "bizarre series of events".

The news of the second settlement being reached over the weekend went relatively unnoticed, with it again being perceived by many as letting Musk off easy, despite being far more detailed in defining what he is and is not allowed to do on Twitter going forward.

While many skeptics and Musk critics derided the second settlement, a more prominent voice has emerged from the criticism: a commissioner at the SEC, Robert Jackson. Jackson, the sole Democrat at the SEC, issued a dissenting statement on Tuesday evening after Judge Nathan approved the deal that resolved the new settlement between Musk and the SEC, according to FT.





Jackson had sharp tongued criticism toward the settlement, stating: "Given Mr. Musk’s conduct, I cannot support a settlement in which he does not admit what is crystal clear to anyone who has followed this bizarre series of events: Mr. Musk breached the agreement he made last year with the Commission—and with American investors."

Musk had been accused of violating a previous settlement last year that required him to get his tweets pre-approved. The new agreement outlines additional information that requires advanced approval. Musk has denied breaking his initial settlement, an almost laughable defensive posture that ultimately wound up working.

The comment is a relatively rare dissent at the SEC, who has been united for the most part, at least in public, on enforcement actions under Jay Clayton. Two Republican commissioners had privately objected to the initial settlement with Mr. Musk last year. And when you can make a point clear to both sides of the aisle – namely that Mr. Musk might be getting special treatment from the SEC - why wouldn't it warrant a further look and additional scrutiny from the public?