.svg)
Legislators in two states will consider bills to ban betting on elections, while it remains unclear whether Democratic lawmakers will reintroduce legislation to ban similar wagers following the Republican takeover of the U.S. Congress.
Even though there are no specific gaming regulations enabling wagering on elections in Massachusetts and Indiana, lawmakers in both states are set to debate proposals prohibiting bets on elections or betting on election outcomes.
Indiana Republican Representative J.D. Prescott introduced House Bill 1532 this month to prohibit sports-betting operators from posting or accepting wagers on the outcome of an election. The bill imposes fines of $1,000 for the first offense, $2,500 for the second offense, and $5,000 and revocation of a license for the third offense.
Current sports-betting regulations allow a licensee to accept wagers on professional and collegiate sporting events or other events approved by the Indiana Gaming Commission (IGC). According to the IGC, esports, high school and other events are prohibited.
If approved, the ban would go into effect on July 1, 2025. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Public Policy for further consideration.
In Massachusetts, Senator Jacob Oliveira, a Democrat, filed SD.2428 to prohibit betting on political outcomes. His bill was declared to be an “emergency law”, which would make it effective immediately upon passage.
Oliveira’s measure would specifically prohibit betting on “political outcomes,” which includes, but would not be limited to, elections for public office within the state, appointments to public office, the passage, amendment, or failure of legislative measures, and any other official decision-making process conducted by political bodies within the state.
Thomas Mills, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, said Monday (January 27) that he was unable to comment on pending legislation.
“The Massachusetts Gaming Commission regulates casino gaming, horse racing and sports wagering in the Commonwealth,” Mills said. “While there is no particular regulation that addresses election betting, sports wagering operators in the Commonwealth do not offer such markets nor has any operator asked the commission to consider those markets.”
Election betting is not an entirely new concern for state lawmakers and gaming regulators.
In April 2020, the West Virginia Lottery briefly allowed wagering on U.S. elections and FanDuel was approved to offer odds for the presidential election.
However, the day after FanDuel was granted permission to offer election bets, the state’s top elected officials weighed in to make clear that the concept would not be returning any time soon.
“The very second that I found about it, I disapproved it, because we are not going to do that,” former Republican Governor Jim Justice said. Justice was sworn in to begin his six-year term in the U.S. Senate earlier this month after winning election last November.
Federal Election Betting Ban In Limbo
At the federal level, Democratic Representatives Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Andrea Salinas of Oregon introduced the so-called Ban Gambling on Elections Act in the House in December, just before the end of the 118th Congress and after Republicans won control of both chambers following the November 5 election.
Their bill was a House companion to Oregon Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley’s similar legislation in the Senate.
Both bills would have amended the Commodity Exchange Act, a federal law regulating the trading of commodities and futures in the country.
“With distrust in our electoral system at an all-time high, we must crack down on gambling in all U.S. elections,” Raskin said in introducing the legislation.
Leesa Klepper, Raskin’s chief of staff, was unavailable for comment on Monday on whether Raskin would sponsor or co-sponsor a new proposal during the 119th session of Congress.
Salinas warned that election betting set a dangerous precedent, incentivizing bad actors to try and influence or interfere with the U.S. election systems.
“We cannot play roulette with our democracy by allowing this kind of wagering without a thorough accounting of the potential consequences,” Salinas said.
The issue of election wagering heated up after a favorable September ruling in a U.S. federal court for regulated prediction exchange Kalshi, which sought to offer markets on U.S. elections, but was initially blocked from doing so by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CTFC).
That ruling remains under appeal by the CFTC, and arguments were heard in a federal appeals court earlier this month.
At least $930m was wagered on the 2024 election, including bets on the outcome of the presidential contest and House and Senate races. MarketWatch reported Kalshi posted $400m in futures contracts, while on ForecastEx, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Interactive Brokers, $538m was wagered on the outcome of the 2024 U.S. elections.
