Prediction markets spent at least $3 million on US political influence

Prediction-market companies and their trade group spent at least $3 million on federal and state lobbying and campaign contributions in 2026, according to an OpenSecrets tally. The spending comes as the platforms press their case that their contracts are federally regulated commodities products, while states argue that many amount to unlicensed sports gambling.

Kalshi, Polymarket and the Coalition for Prediction Markets accounted for the total. Kalshi, the largest platform among those examined, directed much of its political spending toward governors and state attorneys general while mounting a substantial federal lobbying effort.

As we reported in August, Kalshi had already expanded its state lobbying network amid the fight over federal derivatives rules and state gambling law. It has hired at least one lobbyist in 41 states, with particular attention to California and New York, and has a lobbying presence in every state that has introduced legislation specifically addressing prediction markets.

OpenSecrets found that Kalshi contributed more than $300,000 combined to the Republican and Democratic attorneys general associations. During the first half of the year, it also gave $100,000 to the Republican Governors Association and $150,000 to the Democratic Governors Association.

Dani Lever, a Kalshi spokesperson, said the company supports candidates in both parties, as many regulated American companies do. Brad Lipton of the Roosevelt Institute argued that the spending was intended to build sufficient political influence to overcome what he described as deficiencies in the companies’ legal arguments.

Kalshi spent nearly $1 million on federal lobbying in the first half of 2026. Its work targeted the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the White House, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and both chambers of Congress.

The jurisdictional dispute is central to the industry’s political campaign. Platforms describe themselves as commodity markets where users trade contracts on future outcomes, rather than sportsbooks. Kalshi maintains that CFTC regulation means it is not subject to state oversight.

State lawmakers of both parties contest that position, saying the products can bypass gambling restrictions, taxes and consumer-protection rules, especially when tied to sports. A March Stateline report said prediction markets were operating without state oversight even in states that prohibit gambling, while most activity on the platforms involved sports.

The conflict has moved into legislatures, regulators and courts. Litigation between platforms and states had occurred in at least eight states by March, and officials in 11 states had issued cease-and-desist orders to prediction-market companies, according to the American Gaming Association. Attorneys general from 39 states and the District of Columbia had also urged a federal court to preserve state authority over sports gambling.

The CFTC asserts exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets. Four of its five seats were vacant when the latest report was published, and the agency had sued nine states that sought to regulate the industry. Observers expect the Supreme Court ultimately to determine the role states may play in regulating prediction markets.