The boom in election betting in the U.S. stems from federal lawsuits and regulation, but that’s not stopping legislators at the state level from trying to curb political wagering in their own backyards.
At least two bills have been introduced in state legislatures this year that would ban betting on elections using online sportsbooks or otherwise. They might not be the last, either.
In Massachusetts, Democratic Sen. Jacob Oliveira filed a measure – "An Act relative to wagering on political outcomes" – on Jan. 17.
If passed, the “emergency law” would immediately make it illegal for someone to "knowingly place, accept or engage in any form of betting or wagering on political outcomes."
The proposed act would also prohibit people and companies from establishing, maintaining, operating, or promoting “any platform, service or venue, whether physical or digital, for the purpose of facilitating betting or wagering on political outcomes.”
Those “political outcomes” include but are not limited to “elections for public office within the commonwealth, appointments 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.”
Well, not ALL betting
However, S.D. 2428 also makes clear that its provisions do not apply to legal contributions to candidates or campaign financing.
The Massachusetts election betting bill appears to be a blanket ban that would cover the state’s legal sports betting sites. While some of those operators offer election betting in other jurisdictions, they do not do so in the commonwealth.
Although the Massachusetts sports betting law has no explicit prohibition on wagering on U.S. election odds, the state gaming commission has not – and likely would not – approve any political betting for its wagering catalog. The proposed legislation could make doubly certain of that.
In Indiana, Republican Rep. J.D. Prescott's House Bill 1532 takes specific aim at any online sportsbook that may try to offer election betting in the state.
In addition to cracking down on sports betting advertising, H.B. 1532 would ban operators or their vendors from taking bets on the outcome of an election. The measure has been referred to the House’s public policy committee and, if it becomes law, would take effect on July 1.
Clearing things up
Like in Massachusetts, the Indiana Gaming Commission's sports wagering catalog does not permit election wagering. Even so, it’s conceivable the Indiana sports betting law could allow for such betting (even if the commission doesn’t), as its definition of sports wagering includes “other events” approved by the regulator. Prescott’s bill would remove any ambiguity.
The two bills signal that state lawmakers are aware of and want to do something about the growing amount of election betting happening in the U.S., albeit via federally regulated exchanges or offshore entities such as BetOnline and Polymarket. Federal lawmakers have kicked the tires on anti-election betting bills as well, although how much traction such measures could gain in the new Congress remains to be seen.
There is also an ongoing case in federal court involving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Kalshi that may have consequences for the legal election betting already happening. Kalshi has thus far prevailed, but the CFTC is appealing. Oral arguments for the appeal took place last week.
At any rate, clearing up local rules could help avoid headaches later.
In 2020, West Virginia briefly allowed wagering on U.S. elections, and FanDuel even put up odds for the presidential election. However, the state lottery ultimately reversed the decision amid political pushback and concern about a preexisting anti-election betting law.
