Meta description: Lincoln Policy Group has reported $480,000 from Kalshi while Blanche Lincoln’s 2010 sports-contract remarks shape a Supreme Court fight.

Tags: Kalshi, Blanche Lincoln, CFTC, Dodd-Frank, Supreme Court, sports contracts

Market platform: Kalshi

Category: Regulation

Lincoln Policy Group, the firm founded by former Sen. Blanche Lincoln, has reported $480,000 in federal lobbying income from Kalshi since 2024. The filings put Lincoln, a central author of Dodd-Frank’s derivatives title and its event-contract provision, on the other side of a sports-contract fight now moving toward the Supreme Court.

Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act filings list Kalshi as a client of Lincoln Policy Group and identify “issues related to event contracts regulation” as the subject of the work. A 2024 filing names the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Senate and the House as lobbying targets and lists Blanche Lincoln among the lobbyists working on the account.

The arrangement matters because Lincoln’s 2010 Senate-floor remarks have become part of the legal record in the fight over whether state gambling regulators can police sports contracts listed on CFTC-registered prediction-market exchanges. Dodd-Frank did not itself enact a sports-event-contract ban. It gave the CFTC authority to review and prohibit certain event contracts, and the agency later adopted Regulation 40.11, which bars registered entities from listing contracts that involve or reference gaming, terrorism, assassination, war or unlawful activity.

What did Blanche Lincoln say about sports event contracts in 2010?

Lincoln chaired the Senate Agriculture Committee in 2010 and was a primary author of Title VII of Dodd-Frank, the section that expanded federal regulation of swaps and event contracts. In a July 15, 2010 colloquy with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Lincoln described sports event contracts as a key reason Congress was giving the CFTC public-interest authority over some event markets.

According to the Federal Register’s June 12, 2026 notice of proposed rulemaking, Lincoln said the CFTC needed power to prevent derivatives contracts that exist predominantly to enable gambling through event contracts. She named the Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby and the Masters as examples, and said those contracts would have no real commercial purpose and would be used for gambling.

The statutory provision that followed, Commodity Exchange Act section 5c(c)(5)(C), gave the CFTC authority to determine that certain event contracts involving enumerated activities are contrary to the public interest. The CFTC’s current Regulation 40.11 implements that authority by prohibiting contracts involving, relating to or referencing gaming, terrorism, assassination, war or unlawful activity.

What has Lincoln Policy Group done for Kalshi?

Federal lobbying records show Lincoln Policy Group registered to lobby for Kalshi in 2024. The firm reported $180,000 from Kalshi that year and, across later filings, $480,000 since 2024. One 2024 disclosure reported $60,000 for the quarter and described the work as event-contract regulation before the CFTC and Congress.

The firm’s public advocacy has also reached the CFTC rulemaking docket. In a July 10, 2025 CFTC submission, Lincoln Policy Group argued that prediction markets should fall within the CFTC’s domain “with no interference by states” and said the agency should act through a formal rule if needed. The letter also argued that sporting events such as the Super Bowl have commercial value because they affect advertising, apparel sales and hospitality.

That position is narrower than saying states have no role in gambling enforcement generally, but it is still a sharp turn from the 2010 floor statement now cited by state regulators and gaming interests. In 2010, Lincoln used sports events as examples of contracts the CFTC should be able to stop. In 2025, her firm urged the CFTC to protect prediction markets, including sports-related contracts, from state interference.

Why does Lincoln’s record matter in Kalshi’s state cases?

The core legal question is whether the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state gambling laws when a CFTC-registered designated contract market lists sports event contracts. Kalshi argues that its contracts fall under federal commodities law and that state-by-state gaming enforcement conflicts with the federal regime. State regulators argue that Congress did not silently displace traditional state gambling authority.

Lincoln’s 2010 remarks matter because they are legislative history for the event-contract provision. They do not control the statute by themselves, and the CFTC’s 2026 proposal says Congress chose a case-by-case public-interest framework rather than a categorical statutory ban on sports event contracts. But courts, litigants and regulators have continued to cite the colloquy because it addresses the same sports-contract structure now at issue.

The CFTC itself has taken a more permissive view in its 2026 rulemaking proposal. The agency’s June 2026 Federal Register notice said the Special Rule “confirms the CFTC’s jurisdiction over event contracts” and sets out a process by which the agency may find a contract contrary to the public interest, rather than imposing a per se ban based only on the underlying event.

Where does the federal-state fight over Kalshi stand?

The appellate courts are split. In KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty, the Third Circuit ruled on April 6, 2026 that Kalshi had shown a reasonable chance of success on its argument that federal law preempts New Jersey’s application of state gaming law to sports-related event contracts on CFTC-licensed designated contract markets.

The Sixth Circuit went the other way on September 25, 2026 in consolidated Ohio and Tennessee litigation. In KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler and KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel, the court held that Kalshi’s sports-event contracts are not swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and therefore do not fall within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. The court also held, in the alternative, that the Commodity Exchange Act does not expressly or impliedly preempt the states’ gambling laws.

The Ninth Circuit reached a similar result for Nevada on August 28, 2026 in KalshiEX LLC v. Assad. The court held that Kalshi’s sports event contracts were not swaps and that CFTC regulations currently prohibit designated contract markets from listing contracts involving gaming. The Ninth Circuit concluded that federal law was unlikely to preempt Nevada’s gaming regulations as applied to Kalshi’s sports event contracts.

What is before the Supreme Court?

New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit decision. The case is Mary Jo Flaherty, Interim Director, New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, et al. v. KalshiEX LLC, No. 26-299. The Supreme Court docket shows the petition was filed September 2, 2026 and that Kalshi’s response deadline was extended to November 9, 2026.

The docket also shows a wave of amicus activity. Ohio and other states filed an amicus brief on October 7. The National Football League submitted an amicus brief on October 8. Gaming regulators, tribal interests and anti-gambling groups have also appeared in the case, reflecting how quickly the legal fight over prediction-market sports contracts has moved from agency interpretation to state enforcement and Supreme Court review.

For Kalshi, the stakes are not only statutory. A Supreme Court decision could determine whether a CFTC registration lets a prediction-market exchange offer sports contracts nationally or whether states can continue applying gambling laws within their borders. For Lincoln Policy Group, the next federal lobbying disclosure will show whether Kalshi’s payments continued beyond the $480,000 already reported while the Supreme Court considers whether to take the case.