Americans may be banned from betting on election results

Author

Vargoso

Published

1/14/2025

Updated

1/14/2025

The US presidential election in November 2024 was marked by an unprecedented volume of bets on the outcome. Americans bet more than $3.5 billion on Polymarket. Because of this, some politicians believe it is necessary to establish a national ban on betting on election results.

Americans May Be Banned From Betting on Election Results

Is the prohibition coming back?

In October 2024, a Washington court lifted the existing ban on betting on the outcome of the presidential election, thanks to a lawsuit from the Kalshi platform. However, just two months after the election, betting opponents launched a new initiative.

Democratic Party representatives Jamie Raskin and Andrea Salinas introduced the “Ban Gambling on Elections Act” as an amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act, which regulates the exchange of commodities and futures in the United States.

Let us recall that during the November presidential election, bets on Polymarket alone reached $3.5 billion. The most significant profit was received by a bettor who bet $18 million when the odds on Donald Trump were 1.61. His profit was almost $11.5 million.

Clearly, those who bet on Kamala Harris lost all their money. The total bets on her were close to two billion, with the largest being $16 million.

What do legislators not like?

Several American media outlets published articles about large bets on Polymarket, which significantly affected the odds, creating a false impression of the candidates' level of support.
The authors of the laws justified their claims as follows:

Jamie Ruskin:

“Given that distrust in our electoral system is at an all-time high, we must combat gambling in any US election. Our democracy requires a robust and transparent process of voting and counting results. It should not be a racehorse or a game whose odds can be manipulated.”

Andrea Salinas:

“Betting on elections creates a dangerous precedent by encouraging high rollers to interfere with the electoral system. We cannot turn our democracy into a roulette wheel by allowing this type of betting without considering the possible consequences.”

Of course, the bookmakers disagree with the idea that their activity can influence people's opinions and votes. They argue that this type of betting should be seen as an “event-based contract” more similar to regulated financial instruments than gambling.

In the coming months, we will learn more about the legislators' positions and who will win the bet in this case.

Got a question?

Let's chat: