A poll of American adults has revealed a waning attitude to betting on elections via prediction markets, with 44% believing it should be made illegal.
The survey, conducted by the U.K.-based polling firm Public First for American political digital newspaper Politico, also found similar levels of concern about prediction markets offering contracts tied to presidential statements, comments from other public figures, and decisions on presidential pardons.
Prediction markets a “bad bet for democracy”
The poll will likely embolden some politicians, who have long been wrestling with the pros and cons of prediction markets, with many in the Senate and in Congress weighing the potential economic benefits of prediction markets against concerns that the platforms may undermine state gambling laws, consumer protections and tax revenues tied to regulated sports betting.
In an interview with Politico, Democratic senator for Oregon, Jeff Merkley called prediction markets a “bad bet for democracy.”
He added: “If you allow election betting, you now have very affluent folks who can bet millions of dollars and simultaneously affect the outcome of an election through dark money. … That type of corruption in our elections is deadly.”
Polymarket pushed back on the findings of the poll, with Deputy Chief Legal Officer Olivia Chalos telling the outlet the sector “have become a foundational source of real-time information and forecasting, providing real-time probability signals across politics, sports, culture, economics, and current events to anyone seeking market information about future outcomes.”
Poll finds younger Americans more attracted to prediction markets
Prediction markets remain a niche activity among U.S. consumers. More than half of Americans said they would not consider trading on a prediction market, according to The POLITICO Poll, underscoring the industry’s challenge in gaining broader public acceptance.
It wasn’t all bad news for the sector, however. Interest was notably higher among younger adults. The survey found that 12% of respondents ages 18 to 24 and 25 to 34 said they had participated in a prediction market, double the 6% reported across all respondents. Younger adults also showed a greater willingness to try the platforms, with 30% of those ages 18 to 24 saying they would consider placing a prediction market wager, compared with 17% of the overall sample.
Sports contracts continue to generate most prediction market trading volume and remain at the center of disputes with states, tribal groups and gambling operators, which argue the platforms bypass sports betting regulations. Prediction market companies and federal regulators have rejected those claims. At the same time, the industry has broadened into political contracts covering elections, legislation and government appointments, a segment that analysts say could become a key source of future growth.
Polling comes as lawmakers pile pressure on prediction markets
The polling comes as lawmakers in Washington and several states intensify scrutiny of prediction markets, weighing whether the fast-growing platforms should face tighter oversight or clearer regulatory boundaries.
Earlier this month, a Republican lawmaker signaled intentions to introduce a measure that would prohibit members of Congress and their families from placing bets on prediction markets tied to politics, policy and elections, according to people familiar with the proposal. The provision from Rep. Bryan Steil of Wisconsin would be added to a broader bill already targeting lawmakers’ ability to trade individual stocks.
The wider legislation, backed by House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and President Donald Trump, is expected to receive a vote on the House floor. Steil, who chairs the committee overseeing House rules, is leading the push as scrutiny grows over lawmakers’ financial activity in emerging markets.
Under the proposal, lawmakers who wager on events where they hold insider knowledge would face a penalty fee of $2,000 or 10% of the transaction value, whichever is higher, plus any gains. The restrictions would not apply to non-political markets such as sports betting.
