Share 
Former CFTC commissioner Brian Quintenz said election prediction markets should be treated as federally regulated derivatives markets, arguing that federal preemption should control when state officials take a different view.
In a CNBC Television interview published July 24, Quintenz discussed Kalshi’s new midterms hub, a warning from the Wisconsin Elections Commission, and broader concerns around manipulation, insider trading, and who should be allowed to trade in political markets.
Quintenz said the Wisconsin issue raises a state-versus-federal regulatory question. His position was that “federal preemption is supreme when it comes to federally regulated derivatives markets.” He compared the dispute to a 1931 Michigan law that once barred residents from trading grain futures.
He also drew a distinction between polling and prediction markets, saying polls ask what voters want to happen while markets ask what participants think will happen. Quintenz said prediction markets can be more accurate than polls in some elections.
On integrity safeguards, Quintenz said exchanges and the CFTC can monitor for manipulative conduct by reviewing trade size and timing. He added that know-your-customer procedures let exchanges identify users through information such as identity, residence, and employment.
Quintenz also said Kalshi restricts participation by certain politically exposed people, including some government officials and people named in FEC filings. In the interview, he said those limits are meant to address concerns about insider access and conflicts.
The discussion also touched on offshore operators. Quintenz said some firms in the prediction markets space are evading U.S. rules by serving American customers without being registered, a point relevant to ongoing debates around platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
For readers following prediction markets, the main takeaway is that the legal fight is still centered on classification and oversight: whether these products are treated as federally supervised financial contracts, and how far states can go in trying to restrict them. The interview did not announce a new court ruling or enforcement action, but it highlighted the regulatory arguments likely to keep shaping the market.
—
Source: As reported by CNBC Television.
