Kalshi Suspends Congressional Candidate for Trading on Own Race — Senate Already Banned Members
Kalshi suspended North Carolina candidate Laurie Buckhout for three years on August 31 for trading on her own congressional race — the first known candidate enforcement action. A broader Kalshi investigation found multiple politicians trading on their own races including George Santos. The Senate unanimously banned members and staff from prediction market trading on April 30. A CNN feature on September 24 documents election officials' concerns about disinformation and insider trading risk as the 3 November midterms approach.
Kalshi disclosed on August 31 that it had suspended North Carolina congressional candidate Laurie Buckhout for three years and fined her $2,589 for trading on contracts tied to her own race against Democratic incumbent Don Davis — a rematch of their 2024 contest that Davis won by roughly 6,000 votes. Buckhout admitted to bets of less than $1,000. Kalshi said the case was part of a national investigation that found multiple politicians trading on their own races, including former Congressman George Santos. It is the first publicly known enforcement action against a candidate for prediction market insider trading.
For UK readers, the equivalent risk is an election candidate using non-public campaign intelligence — internal polling, canvassing data, endorsement timing — to trade on markets pricing their own probability of victory. The UK Electoral Commission has flagged this as a potential gap in existing financial services regulation: prediction market election contracts fall outside the Market Abuse Regulation's standard insider trading framework because elections are not 'financial instruments' in the MAR sense. In the US, Kalshi's rules fill part of this gap by prohibiting trading by anyone with influence over an outcome, but enforcement depends on the platform's own compliance rather than statutory insider trading law. The Buckhout suspension shows the enforcement mechanism works in at least one case; whether it deters the broader set of politically-connected traders with softer informational advantages is harder to assess.
The US Senate banned its members and staffers from prediction market trading on April 30, 2026 — a unanimous resolution introduced by Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) after a US Special Forces soldier was arrested for allegedly using classified military information to bet on the outcome of a covert operation. Senate Minority Leader Schumer called on the House and Trump administration to adopt equivalent bans; neither has done so. The asymmetry — Senate members covered, House members and executive branch officials not — leaves a large set of government officials with potential access to electoral non-public information who remain free to trade on prediction markets. Whether the House follows the Senate is likely to depend on whether a high-profile House insider trading incident emerges before November 3.
CNN's September 24 feature on the 'first prediction-market election' surfaced a second integrity concern: election officials in multiple states told the outlet that prediction market prices are being used to amplify disinformation. When market odds diverge from polling consensus, candidates who are down in polls but up in markets — or vice versa — cite the discrepancy as evidence that the polls are wrong or that the election is compromised. The Wisconsin governor primary accuracy miss earlier in 2026, where Kalshi heavily favoured the losing candidate, gave critics a concrete example of prediction market error to point to. The platforms' response — that individual low-volume markets are less reliable than high-volume markets, and that overall track records remain strong — is accurate but difficult to communicate in a media environment where individual misses receive more attention than aggregate accuracy statistics. The November 3 midterms, with over $750 million in combined election contract volume, will be the largest test of prediction market electoral accuracy and integrity since the platforms began operating at scale.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
Kalshi's Parlays Drive Back-to-Back $5B Days — and Hand Critics Their Strongest Argument
Kalshi traded a record $5.33 billion on November 7 and $5.36 billion on November 8, with multi-leg parlay-style 'combos' making up roughly 75% of both days' volume. Its 30-day volume topped $100 billion. But the parlay dominance cuts against the platform's legal defence: parlays are a quintessential sportsbook product, and the American Gaming Association has told the Second Circuit that parlays make up about two-thirds of Kalshi's volume and should be treated as sports bets. The implied house edge on 10-plus-leg combos is around 25%, undercutting the argument that these are neutral financial instruments rather than gambling.
Cruz Bill Would Require State or Tribal Approval for Sports Contracts — a Bipartisan Legislative Threat Emerges
Senator Ted Cruz, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, is preparing a bill that would bar federally regulated prediction markets from offering gambling-tied event contracts, including sports, unless a state or tribal government authorises them. It would not ban the contracts nationwide but would require platforms to obtain approval jurisdiction by jurisdiction, resembling state-by-state sportsbook regulation. The proposal arrives as Democrats take control of both chambers after the midterms, creating a potential bipartisan reckoning for a sector that had relied on federal protection.
CFTC Tells Platforms to Stop Geofencing States — Directly Colliding With State Court Orders
The CFTC issued an interpretation on November 5 of its 'impartial access' core principle, telling regulated exchanges including Kalshi and Polymarket to drop state-by-state geographic blocks within 30 days or explain why they cannot. The demand collides head-on with existing state court orders requiring the platforms to geofence: Washington ordered Kalshi to geofence in August, and Michigan ordered it to use licensed geolocation to block the state in September, with a $500,000 daily fine for violations. Chairman Michael Selig framed the interpretation as a uniformity requirement. The platforms are now caught between a federal demand to unblock states and state court orders to block them.