As the fate of prediction markets is being contested in courts across the country, the verdict from the public appears up for grabs.
A poll from Data for Progress suggests bipartisan support for banning controversial markets such as military or geopolitical events and for restricting members of Congress from participating.
Meanwhile, a survey commissioned by Kalshi investor Paradigm suggests voters are more open to regulating prediction markets than banning them and points to growing engagement with the nascent sector.
The polling, first reported by the Event Horizon Substack, comes amid a wave of state lawsuits while lawmakers push restrictions in Washington and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission develops regulatory framework.
Bipartisan opposition to political prediction markets
Data for Progress, a polling firm that says it both measures and moves public opinion, surveyed 1,200 likely voters nationwide earlier this month.
It found a majority of voters oppose allowing prediction markets tied to government actions, with 59% of respondents saying such markets should not be permitted, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Another 67% said members of Congress should be barred from participating.
Respondents expressed the greatest concern about markets tied to sensitive or high-stakes events, with:
- 82% concerned about terrorism-related markets
- 78% concerned about assassination markets
- 70% concerned about election-related markets
- 69% concerned about outcomes individuals could directly influence
Prediction markets gaining traction
The Paradigm-commissioned poll presents a more expansive view of the sector’s reach, pointing to growing awareness and engagement among voters.
The survey found 36% of respondents reported using prediction markets in some form, including 11% who said they have put money on outcomes, 19% who said they browse markets for information, and 6% who do both.
Usage was highest among younger respondents, with 38% of those aged 18–34 reporting participation compared to just 3% of those 65 and older.
It also found voters may be more open to regulation than prohibition, with 35% saying prediction markets should be legal and another 24% supporting legal use in some cases, compared to 15% who said they should be prohibited in some instances.
Lawsuits, rulemaking shape outlook
Regulators in states including Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and New Jersey have taken action against Kalshi and Polymarket over claims their contracts amount to unlicensed gambling.
Arizona Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes charged Kalshi Tuesday with 20 counts of accepting bets without a license and election betting.
More than 30 cases focused on whether federal derivatives law preempts state gambling authority are ongoing and could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Most of those cases focus on sports event contracts, which account for the bulk of Kalshi’s trading. But markets tied to geopolitical and government events have also drawn scrutiny.
Contracts linked to potential military action in the Middle East and election outcomes have raised concerns, as some federal lawmakers have urged the CFTC to clarify that markets tied to war and death are not permitted, while others have introduced proposals to restrict political event contracts and limit participation by elected officials.
The CFTC is soliciting public comments on how even contracts should be defined and overseen, after issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking last week. The process is expected to lead to a formal proposal later this year, setting up what could be the first comprehensive federal framework for prediction markets.
