Earlier this week, Suzanne Cosgrove wrote about the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's decision to prohibit Congressional Control Contracts, which it described as "cash-settled, binary (yes/no) contracts based on the question: “Will <chamber of Congress> be controlled by <party> for <term>?”  The CFTC disapproved of Congressional Control Contracts on the basis that they involve "gaming".   While neither the Commodity Exchange Act nor the CFTC's regulations define "gaming", the CFTC concluded that Congressional Control Contracts involve "gaming"  because "taking a position in the Congressional Control Contracts would be staking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others".

 Some especially mnemonistic readers will recall this blog post from a decade ago discussing the overlap among wagering, insurance, bucketing and the securities laws.