Betting operators and prediction markets spent record amounts on campaign donations and lobbying

The gambling industry is spending to protect its market and influence rules. Sportsbooks want to keep operations in more than 30 states, resist new taxes, and expand iGaming. Prediction markets want federal oversight to continue, while casino companies want those markets restricted or shut down.

The spending uses several channels. FanDuel, DraftKings, Bet365, and Fanatics are giving through Win for America, a super PAC that sends money to state races through partisan PACs. Kalshi executives have given more than $1.6 million to campaigns and PACs. Kalshi and other prediction-market companies are also lobbying the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The fight reflects growing pressure on all sides. Prediction markets have lured bettors and gambling dollars from established operators. Sports betting faces addiction concerns and youth-gambling warnings. More political spending could shape state tax decisions, federal rules, and legal fights over which regulator controls prediction markets.

The article reports a large, overlapping spending campaign across gambling and prediction markets. Sportsbook operators, including FanDuel and DraftKings, have directed more than $80 million into state senate and congressional races through Win for America. The American Gaming Association spent a record $2.06 million lobbying through September.

Kalshi executives contributed more than $1.6 million directly to campaigns and PACs. Kalshi spent another $1.79 million on lobbying, including $1.28 million paid to outside firms. Polymarket spent $270,000 through outside lobbying firms and donated $1 million to a Democratic nonprofit.

The Coalition for Prediction Markets and its backers spent an additional $200,000. These figures show political spending on both elections and lobbying. They do not form one single industry total, because the groups, channels, and reported periods differ. Still, the amounts signal an unusually intense fight over gambling and prediction-market rules.

A prediction market is generally a market where participants buy and sell contracts linked to whether an event will happen. The contract’s value changes as expectations change. The article does not provide a full definition, but it describes prediction-market companies as operating federally regulated markets and battling over their legal status.

A traditional sportsbook takes bets on sporting outcomes, while a casino offers games operated under gaming laws. Prediction markets instead frame event contracts as financial-market products. That distinction matters because it may place oversight with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission rather than state gambling regulators. The article identifies Kalshi and Polymarket as examples.

The boundary remains disputed. State attorneys general argue that prediction sites are illegal online gambling operations. They want shutdowns, limits on sports contracts, or state-by-state regulation. Prediction-market companies are lobbying to support federally regulated markets, while casinos argue the sites evade state and tribal law.

Prediction markets are trying to operate as federally regulated markets, with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as the relevant federal regulator. State attorneys general dispute that treatment. They argue that the sites are illegal online gambling operations and should instead be shut down, restricted, or regulated state by state.

The legal conflict involves several layers. Prediction-market executives are supporting politicians who oversee or shape the CFTC. The American Gaming Association says these markets ignore congressional intent on sports betting and state and tribal law. Meanwhile, sportsbook operators are lobbying against the SAFE Bet Act, which would create a national minimum standard for mobile and sports gambling.

The article does not identify a final court ruling resolving the conflict. For now, companies are lobbying while state attorneys general press their claims. The outcome could determine whether prediction markets remain federally overseen, face state restrictions, or lose access to sports-related contracts.

Stricter rules could change who may offer bets, which events prediction markets can cover, and whether companies can operate across state lines. Sportsbooks could face tighter federal standards, while prediction markets could be limited to non-sports contracts or regulated by individual states. Some operators could be forced to close.

The financial effects would move in different directions. Sportsbooks and casinos could lose customers or face higher compliance costs. State governments could collect less gambling revenue if betting activity declines or moves away from legal operators. The American Gaming Association already argues that prediction markets are taking revenue from states, while prediction companies argue for federally regulated markets.

The article does not quantify the eventual losses or gains. It does show that lawmakers are under pressure from industry spending, addiction concerns, and youth-gambling warnings. Any new rules could therefore reshape competition, tax collections, and the balance between federal and state authority.

Sports betting companies are fighting on two fronts: state taxes and federal regulation. At the state level, they want to protect their footholds in more than 30 states and prevent gaming-tax increases. They also want more states to permit iGaming products, which could expand their markets.

Win for America channels sportsbook donations into state races through American Future and American Conservative Fund. The companies’ stated aim is to fight gaming-tax hikes and expand iGaming. In Washington, sportsbooks are lobbying against the SAFE Bet Act, which would establish a minimum national standard for mobile and sports gambling.

The conflict reflects competing priorities. Companies want flexibility to operate and grow, while policymakers are responding to addiction studies and warnings about youth gambling. The article also reports that casinos and sportsbooks seek tax relief through the FAIR BET Act, which would allow full deduction of gambling losses.

Campaign contributions help companies support candidates who may shape gambling laws. PACs collect and distribute money, while super PACs can spend heavily on political campaigns. Lobbyists work directly with lawmakers and agencies. Together, these tools give companies several ways to influence policy before and after elections.

Win for America illustrates the mechanism. It is a super PAC funded by major sportsbooks and sends money to state races through American Future and American Conservative Fund. Kalshi executives gave more than $1.6 million to campaigns and PACs. Prediction-market companies also lobbied around politicians connected to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The influence is aimed at concrete outcomes. Sportsbooks seek lower taxes, broader iGaming access, and resistance to federal standards. Prediction markets seek federally regulated operations. Casinos want restrictions on competitors. The article shows spending rising as companies face legal challenges, public-health concerns, and battles over regulatory power.