I could probably dredge up a few more -- it seemed like there was one every two weeks from July 2008 - Feb 2009, so these are just the few who were based in the US and who have Wikipedia articles.
While the financial reform is mainly being marketed as a fix for systemic risk, there's also a fairly strong contingent of people who want it to address various consumer protection issues such as predatory lending, failure to disclose fess, etc.(Mike Konczal has been following this carefully at http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/ ). While this effort is stalling, some of their suggestions will still probably make it into the bill. Basically, the politicians want to be in a place where they can say that only "the very rich" are in danger of getting ripped off by hedge fund scams.
The challenge here is that all issuance of securities is lumped into the same category of speculative investment by regulators. This might actually be a good time to try to break off a special category for investing in startups that is separate from the normal "accredited investor" requirements, perhaps by capping the amount anyone can buy as a percent of income(10%?) or assets(5%?). Since the main argument for these things is that each individual investment is too risky on its own, adding this sort of requirement for mandatory diversification might be good enough to get a regulatory carve-out for startups.
Please note that I personally oppose nearly all restrictions of these sorts -- I'm just trying to present the arguments of the regulators and to advance some plausible things to lobby for. It's worth keeping in the back of your head that if publicly-traded common stock was invented today as a novel financial instrument, it would be judged by regulators to have such an idiosyncratic cash flow profile that only financial institutions would be allowed to invest in it.