Judge clears way for bets on US elections

A federal judge has cleared the way for people to bet on U.S. election results for the first time.

A judge in Washington struck down a decision from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) that prohibited gambling companies and users from betting on the outcome of Congressional races.

Last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb ruled in favor of the New York-based company Kalshi.

A hearing was held Thursday for Cobb to outline the court’s reasoning. As of Thursday afternoon, Kalshi can offer prediction contrasts, or yes-or-no bets, on which party will control the House and the Senate after November’s election, at least for now, The Associated Press reported.

CFTC immediately appealed the decision Thursday.

“Today marks the first trade on regulated election markets in nearly a century,” Kalshi founder Tarek Mansour posted on the social platform X. “This one is for you, the prediction markets community.”

It’s not yet known if the company will offer more political betting, including for the presidential race.

No U.S. jurisdiction has authorized betting on elections and several states ban it, but gamblers can use foreign websites as a workaround.

In a decision a year ago, the commission told Kalshi it could not offer yes-or-no bets because it constituted an illegal gambling activity that is considered contrary to the public interest. CFTC said the bets could be used in a way that has an adverse effect on election integrity by “creating monetary incentives to vote for particular candidates,” the AP reported.

Betting was already live on Kalshi’s website Thursday afternoon, with individuals weighing in on who they thought would win the Senate and the House.

Betting “yes” on Republicans winning the Senate cost 75 cents, and “no” cost 25 cents. Betting “yes” on Democrats winning the House cost 63 cents, and “no” cost 38 cents.

Better Markets, a nonprofit that says it advocates for public interest in financial markets, said in a statement the decision raises serious questions about the betting impacts on U.S. elections, saying there is an “urgent need for regulatory action.”