Comment Text:
Election markets should absolutely be allowed. The CFTC should not be swayed by Public Citizen and its denizens. All the comments regarding gambling likely did not read the submission. only the Public Citizen email, and also do not give any analysis. What is the difference between this contract and any futures contract, like grain or cotton or energy? The answer is . . . .there is none. So if the CFTC runs with gambling, they have to run with it all the way.
Also, all the concerns about AI have literally nothing to do with this (other than my suspicion that Public Citizen may have been using AI to astroturf these comments . . . )
Finally, if you actually read the contract, you see that this contract is not gambling. The contract has a high minimum, and no one is like going to just sit there at the bar and bet on this. (Also, it's pretty clear that the Public Citizen folks wouldn't like sports betting either, but that is irrelevant because this is obviously not gambling!) So all the comments like don't allow gambling are missing the point. And to the concern that this is going to corrupt the holy institution of American elections, get real. There is not a single piece of evidence to support that histrionic claim. And don't these people (and the CFTC) realize how much money is ALREADY on elections? This is not going to do anything but smooth things out and make things better.
I mean, CFTC, what do you say about grain markets? Are things better or worse because of derivatives? Of course they are better. Who doesn't like going to the store and seeing the prices staying more or less the same (except inflation, of course.) This contract will be the same.
Stop playing to fear, and being scared of the markets. The CFTC is a market regulator and should encourage regulated markets not kill them, and certainly not because there are 300 bored Public Citizen email subscribers who scream "gambling" without any analysis.
One note, I read with a lot of concern the CFTC's questions. Especially the new questions, which are ridiculous. Question 21 - why can't this rule be enforced? How is this different than any of the trading violations on any market? Do you assume that everyone in the politics is evil and sneaking around to circumvent the rules? Most people keep the rules. Those who break the rules, most get caught. If they don't they don't. But the only thing you care about is insider trading and they will get caught like all insider trading. So the answer to the question is obvious. Yes. It can be enforced. And the premise of the question is idiotic.
And questions 23 and 24? What is this, comedy night at the CFTC? I bet you, and I would FOIA this if I could, that there was more than one rolling on the floor laughing emoji sent when you put out those questions. Do you guys think you're responsible to "surveil, and enforce against . . . ." sales of windmill turbines? Seriously! "O but electricity is part of the regulated markets because there are contracts on electricity". Yeah, right. You guys just piggyback off of the work of the other federal regulators when there is an issue. Which is a good thing. You don't like go out to inspect the cattle yourselves. You don't go taste the gold yourselves. And you don't do anything in the crypto space either, you follow DOJ. Same here.
