- Two states have introduced bills to ban betting on election outcomes
- Massachusetts lawmakers will consider a bill to ban gambling on political outcomes
- Indiana lawmakers will also consider a similar bill
State lawmakers are looking to take the fate of election betting into their own hands.
Two states, Massachusetts and Indiana, will consider legislation this year to potentially ban election betting or betting on election outcomes.
The states are looking to potentially ban these types of bets while federal lawmaker are also considering legislation to do so.
Gaming Commissions Unlikely to Allow Election Betting
Massachusetts Sen. Jacob R. Oliveira (D – Hampden, Hampshire and Worcester) introduced SD 2428 to prohibit gambling on political outcomes in the commonwealth. His bill asks to have the ban be declared as an “emergency law,” which would allow it to go into effect immediately upon approval.
His bill would prohibit betting on “political outcomes,” which would include, but not be limited to, “elections for public office within the commonwealth, appointment to public office, the passage, amendment or failure of legislative measures and any other official decision-making processes conducted by political bodies within the commonwealth.”
As it stands, betting on outcomes in elections in Massachusetts is likely a gray area, with no specific rule prohibiting such actions. However, if a sports betting operator attempted to offer betting markets on such outcomes, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) would have to approve them first.
The MGC is one of the the strictest gaming commission’s in the country and would be very unlikely to approve such markets.
In Indiana, Rep. J.D. Prescott (R-13) introduced HB 1532 to prohibit licensed sports betting operators from accepting bets regarding the outcome of an election. The legislation also specifically notes penalties for operators who do so.
If approved, the bill would go into effect on July 1, 2025. Like the MGC, there is no specific prohibition from the Indiana Gaming Commission banning gambling on the outcome of Indiana elections.
The potential legislation would specifically prohibit gambling on the “outcome of an election” and imposes the following fines if operators do not comply:
- $1,000 fine for first offense
- $2,500 fine for the second offense
- $5,000 for a third offense and license revoked
Despite no prohibition being on the books in the state, the Indiana Gaming Commission would be unlikely to approve such markets.
Federal Lawmakers Looking at Ban
While the states are looking at potential election gambling bans, two U.S. House of Representatives members are looking to put an end to any momentum election betting may have gained over the last year.
U.S. Representatives Andrea Salinas (OR-06) and Jamie Raskin (MD-08) introduced the Ban Gambling on Elections Act to prohibit betting on U.S. elections this past December. The bill would effectively amend the Commodity Exchange Act, a law regulating the trading of commodities and futures in the the country.
The introduced legislation comes several months after Kalshi and ForecastEx took millions of “bets” on the presidential election and DraftKings leadership expressed interest in doing the same in four years.
The mechanism of wagering on president outcomes, which is typically labeled as “trading event contracts,” is regulated differently than sports betting markets. Sports betting is regulated by state gaming regulators and commissions, while the prediction markets are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Companies such as Kalshi will offer “contracts” to users, with prices for each contract reflecting demand from traders. Each prediction market contract matches a buyer and seller for each bet, while prices of the contracts fluctuate based on trading activity and market valuations.
The federal lawmakers are hoping to implement a ban to avoid “bad actors” from influencing or interfering with America’s election systems.
In recent years, there has been a growing trend among states to propose bills that would ban election betting. This controversial topic has sparked debate among lawmakers, political analysts, and the general public. Proponents of these bills argue that election betting can lead to corruption, manipulation of election outcomes, and undermine the integrity of the democratic process. On the other hand, opponents argue that banning election betting infringes on individuals’ rights to freedom of expression and limits their ability to engage in political discourse.
One of the main concerns raised by proponents of banning election betting is the potential for outside influence on election outcomes. They argue that allowing individuals to bet on election results opens the door for foreign entities or special interest groups to manipulate the outcome of elections for their own gain. This could have serious consequences for the democratic process and erode public trust in the electoral system.
Another argument in favor of banning election betting is that it can lead to corruption among politicians and candidates. If individuals are able to profit from betting on election outcomes, there is a risk that politicians may be incentivized to engage in unethical behavior in order to secure a win. This could include accepting bribes, engaging in voter fraud, or making false promises to voters in exchange for bets being placed in their favor.
Opponents of banning election betting argue that it is a form of free speech and should be protected under the First Amendment. They believe that individuals should have the right to express their opinions and beliefs through betting on election outcomes, just as they would through voting or participating in political campaigns. They also argue that banning election betting would not necessarily prevent corruption or manipulation of elections, as these issues can occur regardless of whether betting is allowed.
Overall, the debate over whether to ban election betting is a complex and contentious one. While proponents argue that it is necessary to protect the integrity of the democratic process, opponents believe that it infringes on individuals’ rights to free speech. As more states consider legislation on this issue, it will be important for lawmakers to carefully weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks of banning election betting before making a decision.
