Comment Text:
“Man, proud man,
Dress'd in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd—
His glassy essence—like an angry ape
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep”
I have learned that it is best to be honest with people, and I think I did the CFTC a disservice by sugarcoating my comment during the last Kalshi comment period. This is reality: The ability to risk money on an uncertain outcome, as a rule, incentivizes participants to become experts the topic. Betting on elections creates election experts, who know about voting patterns, turnout and can quickly analyze results. It is an unqualified benefit to our country, our democracy, and the free world. People who oppose this concept are operating out of fear. They are scared of change and some unknown “bad outcomes,” unable to explain what those bad outcomes might be, unable to consider the benefits of something they are unfamiliar with. They are the people Isabella warned about in the quote above, overly complacent in their own authority, overly satisfied with stasis, blind and ignorant to the benefits of progress.
The opponents of this proposal are gatekeepers whose gate does not have a fence, on a road that does not need to be blocked, trying to prevent the shepherd from coming into the field (while wolves wait in the treeline until it becomes dark).
Yet these people insist that wagering and hedging on control of Congress will hurt the country. How? There has not been a single realistic example of harm or even potential harm caused by this proposal. We have heard about potential election interference, that somehow in our billion-dollar political system, the world of Citizens United, where people spend millions and billions to win elections and influence is rampant, the ability to hedge the outcome with capital will make the system worse. It is entirely illogical. There’s a good reason the opponents struggle to explain the cause-and-effect. Because in reality, allowing people to hedge risk on control of Congress, it will shed light and transparency on the system, in a time where voter participation unfortunately lags the rest of the world, making our election system a beacon of light on a hill for other countries.
The CFTC unfortunately did not approve political betting last round, causing Kalshi to withdraw its proposal and resubmit with these new terms. I apologize for my honesty, but this was the wrong decision. Free markets have enabled us to succeed and prosper for hundreds of years in this country while other economies and systems of government have stagnated, wilted or failed. Products like this one are part of our country’s DNA, part of why we have been consistently successful as a nation, from “When in the course of human events, through “We the people,” through “The world will little note, nor long remember;” to “There is no shortcut to achievement,” through “One small step for man,” and through the development of the computer, the Internet, the smartphone, and many of the inventions that empower the world today.
Keep in mind the comments in support of this proposal, over the two comment periods: The President of 3M, close partner of Warren Buffet; a co-Founder of facebook; a Harvard professor and economic confidante of former Presidents, and many more people incredibly valuable to our country and its economic success. Sure, these people could all be wrong. But it’s not likely.
On BOTH sides of the aisle, people who think carefully about this proposal can only tout its benefits. People who do not think carefully about it complain about it and urge its rejection. Don’t take my word for it: Read the comments in support and compare them to the comments opposing this proposal this round.
There is a reason the CFTC has received hundreds of comments in each of the two comment periods for Kalshi’s proposal. It is a significant proposal. It matters. History will remember your decision as progressive or regressive. Do you want to support transparency, keeping the American spirit alive? Or will we debase ourselves to the convenience and comfort that accompanies stasis?
As Steve Jobs said when unveiling the first iPhone, “It’s very fortunate if you have the opportunity to work on something that could change the world just once in your career.” You have that opportunity now. You cannot avoid it or shirk your obligation. It is on a plate in front of you and you must make a decision.
Make the right decision, not the easy one.
