Comment Text:
This comment refers to questions 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, and 17, largely concerning the qualities of public interest, hedging, and legality.
After a lengthy career in physics research and economics, I could not more resoundingly encourage the committee to REJECT this proposal.
On question 6: At significant scale, any economic hedging function determined by these contracts would lead to significant public distrust and the possibility of swinging or eroding public trust in elections. Thinking of the plot to throw the 1919 World Series, or the current push to ban members of Congress from trading public equities. To let a 2 year old Silicon Valley company erode such trust in America's elections is:
1) Highly detrimental to American elections
2) Completely avoidable with the rejection of this proposal
At smaller scale (if applied in the context of state or local elections), the proposal is also deeply alarming. Congressional primaries are often decided by a mere few thousand votes. Imagine millions of dollars of trading volume flowing through elections, changing peoples' calculus and influencing results.
Today, PAC contributions dwarf traditional fundraising. Beyond the moral reasoning above, the possibility of enforcing misuse seems challenging - if not completely impossible. Any insider with connections to influence fundraising could profit significantly - and illegally (addressing question 16).
Finally, on the matter of public interest: American elections are polarized to a degree unseen in decades. Adding the anger, frustration, and addiction of gambling to them would be a disappointing and disgusting turn that would stain the fairness of democracy for years to come.
This proposal monetizes American democracy to the highest bidder, and I could not more deeply PLEAD with the committee to reject this proposal.
