A fresh poll from Politico reveals that a plurality of Americans want to outlaw wagering on election results through prediction markets, a practice that surged in popularity during the 2024 campaign. The survey, conducted by Public First from May 17 to 19, found that 44 percent of 1,167 respondents think betting on election outcomes should be illegal. Just three in 10 said it should be legal, and a quarter were unsure.
The findings come as platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi have drawn billions in bets on political contests. On Election Day 2024, Polymarket users placed $3.2 billion in wagers on the race between President Trump and former Vice President Kamala Harris, with the majority backing Trump, according to Fortune. The Trump administration has unveiled new rules for prediction markets, but states have moved to regulate them, and the administration has sued to block those efforts, arguing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has sole authority.
Opinions on the legality of election betting split along partisan lines but not dramatically. Among Trump voters, 45 percent said such bets should be illegal, while 50 percent of Harris voters agreed. That narrow gap suggests unease with the practice crosses party lines, even as the industry has boomed.
Americans view election betting differently from other prediction market wagers. Over half of respondents said sports betting should be legal, 45 percent backed awards show betting, and 46 percent supported weather bets. But support plummeted for political speech: only 27 percent thought betting on potential comments from the president or other newsmakers should be legal, with 40 percent opposing and 32 percent unsure.
The poll surveyed 2,035 U.S. adults overall, with results weighted by age, race, gender, geography, and education. The margin of error for the full sample was 2.4 percentage points. The sample focused on election betting responses from 1,167 participants.
The push for regulation has been fueled by multiple cases of alleged insider trading on prediction markets. Last month, federal prosecutors charged Google employee Michele Spagnuolo with insider trading on Polymarket, accusing him of using nonpublic data on the company’s “Year in Search” list for 2025. In April, the Justice Department alleged U.S. Army soldier Gannon Ken Van Dyke placed wagers on Polymarket about the operation to capture former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, using details from planning the raid. These cases have raised insider gambling concerns that echo broader debates about market integrity.
As prediction markets expand into political territory, the clash between federal authority and state oversight is intensifying. The Trump administration’s lawsuit to block state rules underscores the high stakes, with the CFTC’s jurisdiction at the center. For now, the public remains skeptical: a clear plurality wants election betting banned, even as the industry’s momentum shows no signs of slowing.
