Comment Text:
As an Iowa corn farmer, political decisions regarding ethanol subsidies and agricultural tariffs are critical to my operation. Kalshi’s election prediction markets could provide a means to foresee and prepare for these changes. The CFTC’s refusal to allow these markets overlooks their potential to benefit farmers. Years ago, people thought grain futures should not exist. Look at how integral they have been in our financial system. Accurate election forecasts can help us make informed decisions about planting, storage, and sales. For instance, the future of ethanol subsidies directly affects our crop planning. Knowing the likelihood of policy shifts allows us to hedge against potential losses. This is not about gambling on elections; it’s about using data to stabilize our livelihood and hedge the risks I have. I understand and respect the desire to ask questions, but the bottom line is that the CFTC has not engaged with the industry, stakeholders, or people like me. They assume that the markets are bad because of made up concerns around being an "election cop." What does that even mean? I have yet to actually understand the CFTC's argument here.
It was clear in the open meeting that this proposal is a political one. The vote for the proposal was 3-2 on party lines. As a Democrat, I want to voice my concerns with the Democratic party and their lack of understanding around innovation and markets. I believe in free markets and good and proper regulation -- but I will never stand for banning markets for political purpose. In this country, we want regulators to oversee our markets. What we don't want is to ban markets than have significant value to the public -- including someone like me who has grown up on a farm. I would not only use these markets to hedge risks, but I would use the market forecasts to help me better prepare for the future. Every single person can benefit from these markets. Rather than being scared of the new, let's embrace the good that can come from these!
Finally, in the Open Meeting I heard concerns around the rise of contracts listed over the years. Why is that a concern? If the issue is a lack of CFCT funding, over-regulation and banning is not the answer. In fact, this solution to "too many contracts" is wrong, inappropriate, and concerning.
Please consider 1) extending the comment period to allow for more time for others to weigh in on this proposal and 2) outright voting no on this proposal if a vote eventually comes.
Thank you for listening.
