Comment Text:
I write in response to the Commission’s request for public comment on questions relating to the proposed rule regarding event contracts. As a member of the futures and swaps industry for a number of years, I am in complete opposition to the Commission’s proposed rule. I appreciate the opportunity to comment to the Commission and share my thoughts for the Commission to consider.
The material of Proposed Rule 89 FR 48968 raises similar questions to KalshiEX’s submissions for political control contracts, Industry Filing Number 22-002 and Industry Filing 23-01. The CFTC received the following response to questions posed by those public inquiries, and the response is equally relevant to the CFTC’s current request.
I therefore adopt that comment as my own, and I enter it into the record before the CFTC for consideration. The CFTC cannot ignore this valuable information in coming to its decision now. Ignoring it would be ignoring my comment.
I add the following for clarity and the avoidance of doubt, which I think is necessary because I think that it is possible, if not likely, that the CFTC will look to ignore or discount any comment that is in support of the contract because of its demonstrated bias against the contract. I am commenting on the proposed rule in response to the CFTC’s current request for comment. My comment cannot be ignored on the grounds that the information that I am submitting to you was already submitted to you in response to an earlier and identical or materially similar question, because I am submitting this information to you now in response to your current questions. And the information that I am submitting is relevant information, just as any other information that is submitted to you is relevant. Certainly the Commission would not be at liberty to ignore my opinion or analysis if it was based on some other information, and certainly the Commission is not at liberty to ignore my opinion or analysis based on the highly relevant information that I include in my comment. This information is highly relevant because it was submitted in response to an identical or materially similar question. Further, even without that point, it is my opinion that the information is relevant, and therefore the Commission has to either accept the relevance or explain in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor capricious why it is not relevant. And as I’ve made very clear, saying that the information is not relevant because it was not submitted in response to this particular round of questions is false, and facially arbitrary and capricious because I am submitting it to you in response to these questions on the gourds that I have determined that it is relevant.
