Former Senator Blanche Lincoln, who warned in 2010 that prediction markets could become a backdoor for sports gambling, has registered as a lobbyist for Kalshi and is urging the CFTC to shield sports event contracts from state gambling regulators. Her firm, Lincoln Policy Group, received $180,000 from the exchange in 2024 for lobbying on event contract regulation, according to lobbying registration records.

The reversal is stark. In July 2010, during Senate debate over the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Lincoln argued from the Senate floor that poorly regulated prediction markets could sidestep gambling laws by dressing wagers up as "event contracts." She named the Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby and the Masters golf tournament as obvious targets for such products.

"These types of contracts would not serve any real commercial purpose. Rather, they would be used solely for gambling," Lincoln told her Senate colleagues at the time.

What changed between 2010 and 2025?

Lincoln's position has inverted entirely. In July 2025, Lincoln Policy Group filed comments with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission urging the agency to assert exclusive jurisdiction over all prediction markets, sports event contracts included.

Her new argument leans on commerce rather than consumer protection. The filing points to the ways these contracts touch advertising, merchandise sales and hospitality, and warns that leaving oversight to individual states would produce a chaotic patchwork for businesses operating in the sector.

The commercial stakes are significant. Sports contracts made up an estimated 77% of Kalshi's trading volume in early 2025, a share that reportedly climbed to between 80% and 90% later in the year. Lincoln registered as a lobbyist for the company in 2024.

Lincoln has also backed Kalshi in court, supporting the company through an amicus brief filed with the Third Circuit as part of the litigation over whether states can police Kalshi's sports products.

Why does her 2010 role matter?

Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, played a central role in crafting Dodd-Frank, the statute that set the framework the CFTC now uses to oversee event contracts. Her 2010 remarks came from one of the law's authors explaining what the rules were supposed to prevent — not a stray comment from the back bench.

That history cuts both ways. A Dodd-Frank architect arguing for federal oversight lends weight to Kalshi's claim that Congress intended the CFTC to govern these products. But state regulators and opposing lawyers can quote her own floor statements as evidence of exactly what Congress feared, because her 2010 examples describe the products now driving the bulk of Kalshi's volume.

How have the courts split?

Kalshi operates as a CFTC-designated market, and that federal status anchors its legal strategy: if sports event contracts count as federally regulated derivatives, the company argues, state gambling laws should not apply.

The appellate courts disagree. The Third Circuit sided with Kalshi on federal preemption, accepting that federal commodities law can override state rules in this area. The Sixth and Ninth Circuits ruled the other way, leaving room for states to treat the contracts as gambling subject to local regulation.

Lincoln's CFTC filing effectively asks the federal regulator to resolve that circuit split in Kalshi's favor by declaring the entire field federal territory.

Traditional sportsbooks and state gaming regulators are watching the outcome closely. A federally regulated product that functions like a sports bet could reach customers in states where conventional betting is limited or banned, reshaping the competitive boundaries of the US sports wagering market.

The immediate variables are the CFTC's response to the comment filings and whether additional appellate circuits weigh in on preemption, either of which could force a clearer delineation between federal derivatives oversight and state gambling authority.