Policy outcomes
How this issue is resolved shapes the rules voters live under.
The issue in plain English
Should election prediction markets be legal in the United States?
Prediction markets that let users buy and sell contracts tied to election outcomes have grown rapidly, drawing billions of dollars in trading volume during the 2024 cycle. A 2024 federal appeals court ruling allowed Kalshi to offer congressional control contracts over the objections of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, reopening a long-running debate over whether such markets aid public understanding or threaten election integrity.
Why this matters
What the answer actually changes.
Representation
The arguments reveal who gets a stronger voice when the question is settled.
Trust
Whether the process feels fair influences how voters trust the outcome.
The arguments
Two sides of the debate.
The goal is not to decide for the voter. It is to make the strongest competing views easy to understand.
Supporters say
The case for legalization
Supporters say prediction markets aggregate dispersed information from many participants and can produce probability estimates that update faster than traditional polls, particularly as news breaks. Because traders risk their own money, proponents argue, the prices reflect a disciplined synthesis of polling, fundamentals and on-the-ground signals that journalists, campaigns and researchers can use to gauge the state of a race. Advocates also contend that prohibition pushes activity to unregulated offshore venues, where U.S. authorities have limited visibility into trading and customer identities. Bringing the markets onshore under CFTC oversight, they argue, allows for position limits, anti-manipulation rules, recordkeeping and surveillance that would not exist if Americans simply migrate to platforms outside U.S. jurisdiction.
Critics say
The case against legalization
Critics, including the CFTC in its prior actions, argue that letting people profit directly from election outcomes creates financial incentives to influence those outcomes, whether through disinformation, voter suppression efforts or attempts to sway turnout. They warn that even relatively small price movements in thin contracts can be cited in news coverage and amplified on social media, potentially shaping perceptions of legitimacy around close races. Opponents also point to enforcement gaps. Unlike securities markets, prediction markets lack a uniform federal insider-trading statute, leaving enforcement largely to exchange contract terms and CFTC anti-manipulation rules. With thousands of federal, state and local races, skeptics question whether regulators can realistically police trading by campaign insiders, pollsters or election officials who may have nonpublic information.
Key facts
Numbers behind the question.
$3.7 billion+
Volume on U.S. election-related contracts on Polymarket during the 2024 presidential cycle
Industry data cited by Reuters
2024
Federal appeals court allowed Kalshi to offer contracts on congressional control over CFTC objections
U.S. Court of Appeals ruling
No uniform statute
Prediction markets lack a dedicated federal insider-trading law; enforcement relies on CFTC anti-manipulation rules and contract terms
CFTC regulatory framework
Context
How the issue reached a head
Election prediction markets allow users to buy and sell contracts that pay out based on political outcomes, such as which party controls Congress or who wins the presidency. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has historically opposed domestic listings of such contracts, citing the agency's authority to bar event contracts it deems contrary to the public interest, and has pointed to election integrity and enforcement challenges as core concerns. That posture was tested in 2024, when a federal appeals court allowed the regulated exchange Kalshi to offer contracts on congressional control after the CFTC tried to block them. Meanwhile, the offshore platform Polymarket, which is not licensed to serve U.S. customers, drew more than $3.7 billion in volume on U.S. election-related contracts during the 2024 presidential cycle, according to industry data cited by Reuters. The combination of court rulings, surging trading activity and uneven regulatory reach has pushed Congress, regulators and courts to revisit whether and how to permit the markets.
Evidence
What the record shows so far
The empirical record is mixed. Academic studies of historical markets such as the Iowa Electronic Markets have found that prices sometimes track or outperform polling averages, though performance varies by election and time horizon. In 2024, some prediction market prices diverged from poll-based forecasts in the closing weeks of the presidential race, a gap supporters cited as evidence of informational value and critics cited as evidence of potential bias or manipulation by large traders. Documented cases of attempted manipulation remain limited in the public record, in part because offshore venues are not subject to U.S. disclosure rules and because regulated domestic listings are new. Both sides agree that more data on trader identity, position sizes and trading patterns would help evaluate the markets' effects, but they disagree on whether that data is best gathered by legalizing and regulating the markets or by restricting them.
Continue exploring
Keep going.
Survey
Should the federal government set national rules for mail-in voting?
Should the federal government set national rules for mail-in voting?
Issue brief
Should Election Day be a federal holiday?
Proposals to designate the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as a federal holiday have drawn both broad public support and persistent opposition in Congress.
Civics guide
How the Electoral College works
The Electoral College is how Americans actually choose the President — not directly by popular vote, but through state-by-state electoral votes that total 538.
Glossary
Cloture
Cloture is the only formal way to end a Senate filibuster — get 60 senators to vote to close debate, and the bill moves to a vote.