Font Size: AAA // Print // Bookmark

Comment for Industry Filing 20-004

  • From: John Kindt, Sr.
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

    Comment No: 64798
    Date: 1/27/2021

    Comment Text:

    Executive Summary: The types of futures contracts proposals under CFTC consideration were anticipated by the bipartisan National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC) which concluded in 1999 that enhancements enabling various types of gambling should remain criminalized (see, e.g., recs. 5-1 to 5-4). One Federal example adverse to gambling interests is currently being pursued and litigated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) re the Wire Act.

    Since 1999, hundreds of law review articles, economics journals, and government reports have confirmed and extrapolated upon these conclusions of the congressional NGISC. as exemplified in the dozens of subsequent authoritative documents republished in the multivolume academic reference work, United States International Gambling Report (available at U.S. Congressional Library as well as the Library of Congress--national security section).

    Despite well-intentioned regulatory efforts, there is virtual economic certainty that these "innovative futures contracts" as proposed could provide the color of "CFTC legitimacy" for unscrupulous facilitators to form de facto bucket shops online. See "60 Minutes: Financial WMDs," Steve Kroft reporter. In this regard, the CFTC is looking at speculation upon speculation into a speculative bubble.

    Under the specter of the mistakes in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), the CFTC could quickly find itself overwhelmed by regulatory violations and enmeshed in unanticipated issues. The CFTC's proper focus should be the macro-economic and strategic impacts of futures contracts which inherently undermine financial institutions, economic systems, and the public interest. Congressional and media sensitivities regarding CFMA still exist and thus argue for congressional action on such sweeping proposals as futures contracts. The CFTC should defer to anticipated congressional action and deny the "proposed RSBIX NFL futures contracts."