The Indian Gaming Association (IGA) has spoken out against the latest version of the CLARITY Act, saying that changes to the crypto bill do not protect tribal gaming rights.
IGA Says Revised CLARITY Act Fails to Protect Tribal Gaming
The 630-page proposal was unveiled Thursday by Senator Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., chair of the Senate Banking Electronic Assets Subcommittee. The revised legislation came just before a procedural vote Tuesday in the Senate.
The vote will decide if lawmakers can start formal debate and hear amendments. The measure could die before Congress leaves Washington ahead of November’s midterm elections if it doesn’t get enough support.
Lummis said the new version has more than 114 changes that Democratic senators wanted. It also changes rules on decentralized finance (DeFi) and digital assets as well.
Some of the changes are in response to issues with prediction markets. The bill now restricts its DeFi provisions to certain digital commodity trades. Lummis said the change was intended to make sure the legislation does not inadvertently alter the rules for prediction market contracts.
However, the IGA says the change did not address its major concerns. IGA chairman David Bean said that the organization will still oppose the revised legislation. He noted that Lummis had responded to issues raised by tribal governments, but the changes do not provide the protections Indian Country is seeking.
IGA Raises Concerns Over CFTC Powers Under CLARITY Act
The biggest concern for the association is the potential expansion of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Bean said the legislation would greatly expand the federal regulator’s authority, without establishing clear boundaries on tribal and state gaming laws.
The IGA is especially concerned with prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket selling contracts tied to sports events and casino-related outcomes.
The association says the bill needs explicit language that federal commodities legislation cannot supersede state or tribal gaming laws, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
The IGA also wants to prevent designated contract markets (DCMs) from offering contracts based on sports betting or casino games.
Without those provisions, the organization will continue to push lawmakers to vote against the legislation. Bean also said that the bill’s possible passage is the biggest threat to tribal sovereignty that they have seen.
The dispute is a microcosm of the larger struggle between federal commodities regulation and the right of tribal governments to regulate gaming on their lands.
Even if the CLARITY Act does not move forward this month, the issue may still be relevant. The immediate future of the legislation depends on the upcoming Senate vote, but the battle over prediction markets and tribal gaming jurisdiction does not seem to be going away anytime soon.
The key question for tribal gaming interests is whether federal commodities rules might preempt existing tribal gaming regimes. The IGA wants the relationship clearly spelled out in the legislation before it can support the measure.