In an era where our political discourse has been commodified and our attention spans sold to the highest bidder, it seems inevitable that someone would find a way to put a price on the ultimate form of civic engagement: voting. The recent decision by U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb to allow Kalshi, a New York-based startup, to facilitate legal betting on congressional elections represents another step in the deterioration of our political norms. By allowing financial speculation on the outcomes of elections, we not only risk eroding public trust but also invite manipulation and further skepticism into an already fragile democratic process.
Kalshi’s business model, praised by its founders as a way to “provide signal amidst the noise,” is, in essence, the equivalent of placing bets at a racetrack. Only this time, the stakes are the very institutions that bind the fabric of American democracy. Yes, Kalshi is attempting to operate under the regulation of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), but that in itself highlights the absurdity of treating election results as mere market predictions.
To reduce elections—the cornerstone of democracy—to a speculative investment is to commodify what should remain sacred. The founding principles of the American republic were grounded in the idea that the people, through their votes, could exercise sovereignty. Turning that vote into something that can be gamed and profited from by the highest bidder is antithetical to the spirit of a government “by the people, for the people.”
The CFTC’s concerns, articulated by attorney Raagnee Beri, ring alarm bells for those paying attention. She compared the risk of election betting to commodity manipulation, where bad actors, with enough incentive, could spread misinformation to influence market prices. In this case, it’s not just the price of corn at stake, but the integrity of the electoral process.
Imagine, for a moment, a scenario where a political outcome is subject to massive wagers from powerful individuals or groups. Those with financial stakes would be incentivized to sway elections in their favor, potentially through disinformation campaigns or more nefarious means. The absurdity of this possibility should be self-evident, yet it is no longer merely theoretical.
We’ve already seen how misinformation spreads like wildfire across social media platforms, often with devastating consequences for public discourse. Now add financial incentives to the mix, and you have the recipe for an unprecedented assault on the credibility of elections. To compound this issue, the betting markets are likely to heighten polarization. If financial incentives align with political outcomes, partisanship won’t just be about ideological victories—it’ll be about cashing in.
Kalshi’s co-founder, Tarek Mansour, has painted the company’s efforts as revolutionary, saying, “Now is finally the time to allow these markets to show the world just how powerful they are at providing signal amidst the noise.” But this is an innovation we can do without. In reality, Kalshi’s markets are little more than a cynical rebranding of election speculation, something that has thrived in the shadows for decades. While some might argue that bringing this practice into the light of regulated markets ensures transparency, it misses the point entirely.
Betting on elections isn’t some benign novelty. It’s a pernicious idea that cheapens democracy, turning political participation into another vehicle for profit. This isn’t Las Vegas; this is the future of our country at stake. The CFTC’s prohibition of such markets last year was rooted in a common-sense concern about maintaining the sanctity of elections. By legalizing this practice, even temporarily, the court has opened the door to a series of damaging consequences that we can scarcely afford.
The CFTC is, understandably, appealing Judge Cobb’s ruling, and one can hope that cooler heads will prevail in the appellate courts. But even if this particular case is resolved in favor of maintaining the prohibition, it raises a larger question: How much are we willing to tolerate in the name of innovation and financial gain?
The West Virginia experiment in 2020, when election betting was briefly legalized and then swiftly shut down, should have been a cautionary tale. Instead, it seems to have been treated as a dry run by companies eager to find the next frontier of profit, regardless of the societal cost.
If Kalshi’s gamble on election betting becomes a precedent, we will have crossed a dangerous threshold, where democracy is no longer seen as a civic duty but as just another speculative market. And once that happens, how long before the integrity of our elections is irreparably damaged? After all, if everything is for sale, why should elections be any different?
The threat is not just to the markets or to those who would place bets. The true risk is to the very foundation of democracy itself. We should not wait to suffer the consequences before we realize the magnitude of this error. The time to build the dam is now, before we are awash in the floodwaters of mistrust, manipulation, and market-driven democracy.
In the final analysis, betting on elections is not about predictive accuracy or fun. It is about the commodification of civic life, where every institution, from voting booths to Congress, is reduced to a transaction. This is not what the founders envisioned, nor is it a future we should embrace. Instead, we should remind ourselves that democracy is not a game to be bet upon, but a trust to be honored.
Senate Ballot Box Scores
Comments