Comment Text:
Noting that today you extended the comment period without any explanation. Why does the CFTC not have internal policies and controls that require transparency? The CFTC should at the MINIMUM follow its core principles (really, it should lead by example). Why is there no explanation given?
Additionally, another concern has arisen, which is that certain commissioners have used the public comment system to inject their own views into the process. I doubt it's deliberately evil, and the commissioners probably think "hey, let's ask this special interest group or that special interest group to weigh in because I want their views." That itself is not a problem. What is a problem is the lack of transparency from these commissioners and commenters that the comment came at the request of a commissioner. This misleads the public, and causes widespread delegitimizing of the public comment process. Rather ironic, given these commissioners' stated views.
Another persistent problem is the question of "do commissioners actually read comments?" The answer is probably no, and certainly not all. So how do they formulate their views? Relying on the Staff, who does not work for them, and can edit out or editorliaze comments, such as this one.
Also, I note that the quality of thought in the comments has had an inverse relationship to the volume of comments. The RFC on kalshi's contract generated a thousand astroturfed comments from people who clearly did not read the contract, probably never even heard of the CEA, and just followed some ridiculous email prompt from Ralph Nader. The comments on this RFC actually made it to the second page, all thanks to the industrious commenter who has taken it upon itself to highlight the perfidy it sees in the CFTC's and SEC's collusion, and what is a stated love of truth. Those, plus my two cents (one cent a comment) are it.
Maybe, just maybe, there is a problem. Maybe the commissioners should be more transparent. maybe some of them (because this is not a problem with them all, just some) should talk less about systemic risk, transparency, etc. and actually do something to increase transparency. Maybe the CFTC should REQUIRE ITSELF to give a rationale before extending a deadline like this. Maybe the commissioners should be transparent about how many comments they actually read before they take an action. (commissioner x votes no on the matter, after having read a grand total of 2% of the comments, commissioner y votes yes after having read none of the comments . . . that is probably what it would sound like). Maybe certain commissioners should say less about communication (a serious issue, to be fair) and stop having side conversations at dinners and cocktail parties with members of industry and special interest groups that she does not report to anyone. A little transparency might go a long way.
