With no bipartisan leadership, CFTC won't ‘slow down‘ on rulemaking

Democratic lawmakers called out Michael Selig for unilaterally advancing policies at the regulator that's normally led by a bipartisan group of five commissioners.

The chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Michael Selig, said he would not wait for the appointment of additional commissioners to lead the regulatory agency before moving ahead on rulemaking potentially related to digital assets and prediction markets.

In a Thursday hearing of the House Agriculture Committee, Selig responded to questions from ranking member Angie Craig, who called out the lack of leadership at the CFTC, which normally has a bipartisan panel of five commissioners. The Minnesota representative asked the chair to commit to not finalizing regulations while he is the only commissioner.

“In the interim, we cannot, for the sake of the American people, slow down in our rulemaking,” said Selig. “It’s very important that we get investor protections, consumer protections and safeguards for our markets. And so, I cannot, unfortunately, commit to not do my job that I was appointed to do by the president.”

Selig, who has served as the CFTC’s sole commissioner and chair since December, has come under scrutiny from many lawmakers for unilaterally leading the agency on rules favoring crypto and prediction markets with no bipartisan group of commissioners. As of Thursday, President Donald Trump had not publicly announced any nominations to staff the agency nor signaled he intended to do so.

“We’re going to do more through rulemaking,” said Selig in response to a question on the CFTC’s leadership from Representative Don Davis. “We can’t have the staff deciding on discretion what the rules are.”

Related: CFTC probes oil futures trades tied to Trump's moves in Iran: Report

The CFTC chair proposed rulemaking in March that could amend or issue new regulations over event contracts on prediction markets. Selig has been outspoken about claiming that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets as the companies behind some platforms face state-level lawsuits related to sports betting laws and proposed legislation to crack down on insider trading.

Gaming authorities in several US states have filed lawsuits against prediction market companies like Kalshi and Polymarket, alleging the platforms offered sports betting in violation of state laws.

New Mexico Representative Gabe Vasquez questioned Selig at Thursday’s hearing with a visual aid showing that bets on event contracts and through state-level gaming “aren’t much of a difference, yet they are regulated completely differently.” He accused the CFTC of using “loopholes” to bypass state laws and requirements for prediction markets, causing some jurisdictions to miss out on revenue.

“The CFTC was not created or intended to regulate sports gambling,” said Vasquez, adding:

Companies like Kalshi have argued that they are under the sole jurisdiction of the CFTC. This argument led the company to court wins in Arizona and New Jersey, where this month judges blocked state officials from taking action against Kalshi.

Magazine: Should users be allowed to bet on war and death in prediction markets?

Source: CoinTelegraph