(NewsNation) — The general election is less than two months away, and Americans might be able to legally place bets on who they think will win the White House and other ballot races.
A start up called Kalshi is looking to offer election betting. However, the issue is held up in court with a hearing scheduled for Thursday and likely won’t be resolved until after this year’s election.
Who spoke more during the debate: Trump or Harris?
Fight to legalize election betting
Last week, a judge sided with Kalshi in a fight with the federal agency that regulates markets, allowing the platform to offer election wagers. It’s currently illegal for Americans to bet on election outcomes within U.S. boundaries, but billions of dollars are gambled overseas on American politics and Kalshi wants to change that.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission requested an emergency stay on the judge’s ruling, which is why Americans can’t rush out and place a wager on any election right now. Kalshi pushed back against the commission in a court filing Sunday, calling the emergency motion to halt the judge’s ruling “meritless,” according to CoinDesk.
House Republicans bemoan Trump debate performance
Pros and cons of election betting
The pros and cons of legalizing betting on American elections depends on who is asked.
The U.S. government claims the integrity of the American election system is on the line. Plus, the government is not alone in saying that. The CFTC argued that allowing people to bet on politics “could potentially be used in ways that would have an adverse effect on election integrity” and could “undermine confidence in elections.”
Stephen Hall, the legal director of financial regulation organization Better Markets, thinks opening the door for election gambling could lead to more election inference, that it would “create powerful new incentives for bad actors to interfere with our elections and sway voters outside of the democratic process.”
Election betting is allowed in the U.K., but there was a reported betting scandal this summer with a government employee. Regardless, election gambling in the U.K. brought in $1.5 billion on the 2020 presidential election.
Kalshi argues allowing bets on U.S. soil is safer than foreign platforms and would provide valuable data for political analysis.
Kristi Noem: Harris wasn’t ‘fact-checked’ by ABC moderators
Why now?
When Judge Jia M. Cobb, of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, issued her ruling last week, she didn’t give a detailed opinion in siding with Kalshi, which is why the CFTC argued the stay was needed. Cobb said a full opinion explaining her ruling would come later, and she granted the stay Monday.
Daniel Wallach, who owns a gaming and sports betting law firm, said he thinks it’s only a matter of time until election gambling is allowed and believes — much like sports betting — it’ll be better for the states to regulate it.
