Comment Text:
This proposed rule is a very bad idea. Political/election future markets are not equivalent to gambling or games of chance. They are not random, there is no "house," and they provide a legitimate social and economic function similar to grain or oil futures. Economically, they allow people to hedge future risk. For example, the policies of politician A would hurt my business substantially if he is elected and able to implement them. I can "bet" on A to hedge against the financial loss incurred. Socially, they provide substantial benefit to the public by giving an accurate picture of the political situation, free of bias from "commentators" who want specific outcomes. Of course one can gamble on political futures, just as one can gamble on corn futures or the stock market, but that doesn't make the future itself gambling. Finally, a law won't stop anyone who wants to gamble - they will simply move to offshore and more dangerous options to get their fix. In other words, the rule to protect the "dumb" from gambling will in force them into dumber choices, while simultaneously punishing parties who use the markets responsibly.
In closing, I find this move to outlaw political futures especially tone death and ironic in a time where sports gambling has become legal everywhere. Stop wasting time and taxpayer resources coming up with idiotic rules that protect no one - we, the public, aren't children and can make our own decisions about how to spend/invest our money.
