Kalshi, Polymarket and the Coalition for Prediction Markets have spent at least $3 million in 2026 on lobbying and campaign contributions, according to an OpenSecrets analysis reported by Stateline on October 1. Kalshi accounted for nearly $1 million in federal lobbying in the first half of the year and has hired lobbyists in 41 states.
The spending shows how quickly prediction-market operators have moved from defending isolated lawsuits to building a broader political operation. The core fight is whether event contracts are federally regulated derivatives under the Commodity Exchange Act, as the platforms argue, or gambling products that states can license, tax or prohibit.
How much have prediction markets spent on lobbying and contributions in 2026?
OpenSecrets put the industry’s 2026 political spending at more than $3 million across Kalshi, Polymarket and the Coalition for Prediction Markets, the trade group that has become a vehicle for industry advocacy. Stateline reported the figure on October 1, citing OpenSecrets’ review of lobbying and campaign-finance records.
The number is a floor, not a complete map of industry influence. It covers identified lobbying fees and political contributions at the state and federal levels, while some state activity can be harder to compare across jurisdictions because disclosure rules vary. Even so, the scale is notable for a sector that has moved into mainstream politics, sports and economic-event contracts.
Kalshi is the largest identified spender in the public data cited by OpenSecrets and Stateline. The company spent nearly $1 million on federal lobbying in the first half of 2026, with disclosed targets including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the White House, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Where has Kalshi sent political contributions?
Kalshi’s 2026 giving has included both Republican and Democratic political organizations, according to Stateline’s account of the OpenSecrets analysis. The company contributed more than $300,000 combined to the Republican Attorneys General Association and the Democratic Attorneys General Association.
That giving lands in a politically important part of the fight. State attorneys general have been central players in litigation and enforcement debates over whether prediction-market products should be treated as federally regulated swaps or as gambling activity subject to state law. States including Minnesota and Nevada have challenged or sought to limit event-contract activity, while Kalshi and other market operators have argued that federal law preempts those efforts.
Kalshi also gave $100,000 to the Republican Governors Association and $150,000 to the Democratic Governors Association in the first half of 2026, according to the figures Stateline cited. The contributions put the company in front of national political groups tied to state executives at the same time state legislatures and regulators are weighing bills, enforcement actions and tax proposals aimed at prediction markets.
Kalshi spokesperson Dani Lever defended the bipartisan pattern in a statement to OpenSecrets: “Like many U.S. regulated companies, we support candidates on both sides of the aisle.” The statement came from a company with a direct stake in the regulatory outcome, but it matches the public pattern in the cited giving: money went to organizations aligned with both parties.
How many states is Kalshi lobbying in?
Kalshi has hired at least one lobbyist in 41 states, according to Stateline. The company also has lobbying representation in every state that has considered legislation specifically aimed at prediction markets, with particular attention to California and New York.
The state push reflects how broad the industry’s legal exposure has become. A federally regulated exchange can win approval from the CFTC to list contracts, but state officials have argued that some event contracts, especially sports contracts, look and function like betting products. That has created a direct conflict between federal derivatives law and state gambling law.
Minnesota became the most visible example in 2026. Gov. Tim Walz signed a prediction-market prohibition on May 18, making Minnesota the first state to enact a law aimed at banning the platforms outright. The law was scheduled to take effect on August 1, but U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez issued a preliminary injunction on July 27 in consolidated litigation brought by Kalshi, Polymarket and the CFTC against Minnesota officials.
The injunction did not end the case. It allowed the platforms to continue operating in Minnesota while litigation proceeds and kept the law from taking effect as scheduled. In her order, Menendez found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on at least part of their federal-preemption argument for swap transactions, while leaving room for continued litigation over how the statute applies across different kinds of prediction-market contracts.
What is the CFTC’s role in the state fights?
The CFTC is both the industry’s federal regulator and, in several disputes, an active litigant against state restrictions. Stateline reported that the agency has sued nine states over attempts to regulate the industry. The CFTC’s position in those cases is that the Commodity Exchange Act gives it exclusive jurisdiction over federally regulated derivatives markets.
Kalshi has made the same basic argument. Sara Slane, the company’s head of corporate development, told lawmakers that prediction markets are regulated by the CFTC and should not be subject to state oversight, according to Stateline. That position is central to Kalshi’s business model because the company lists event contracts through a federally regulated derivatives exchange rather than through state gambling licenses.
The agency is pressing that view with limited leadership capacity. The CFTC has had four vacancies on its five-member commission, leaving a single sitting commissioner while the agency handles litigation, enforcement questions and rulemaking in a market that has grown quickly since political and sports contracts entered the center of the public debate.
The CFTC has also been moving on formal rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ reginfo.gov record for the CFTC’s prediction-markets rulemaking shows the matter under White House review, and Bloomberg and The Block have reported that two prediction-market rules were sent for review. One item has been described as an interim final rule, a form that can take effect without the ordinary notice-and-comment sequence used for a proposed rule. A separate proposed-rule track could still create a formal comment period for exchanges, gambling regulators, consumer advocates and state officials.
What do critics say about the industry’s political strategy?
Critics argue that the platforms are using political spending to strengthen a legal position that remains contested in court. Brad Lipton, director of the Roosevelt Institute’s corporate power and financial regulation program, told Stateline that prediction-market companies are “trying to create a situation…where they have enough political power to overcome the legal deficiencies.”
That is a critic’s characterization, not a court finding. The platforms reject the premise and maintain that the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC authority over the contracts they list on federally regulated exchanges. State officials and gambling regulators counter that federal registration should not allow exchanges to bypass state gambling restrictions, consumer-protection rules or taxes attached to betting activity.
The courts have not resolved the issue uniformly. In Minnesota, the platforms and the CFTC won a preliminary injunction before the state ban took effect. In Nevada, an August 28 Associated Press report said a federal appeals court panel refused to let Kalshi restart trading on sports and election contracts while it fights the state’s effort to require a gambling license. Those differing results explain why the dispute is advancing simultaneously through federal courts, statehouses and the CFTC’s rulemaking process.
Why do political ties matter in prediction-market regulation?
Political ties matter because prediction-market regulation now sits at the intersection of campaign finance, federal derivatives law, state gambling authority and presidential administration policy. Stateline reported that Donald Trump Jr. holds financial stakes in both Kalshi and Polymarket, two companies that compete with each other in the prediction-market sector.
Stateline did not report that those stakes affected any regulatory decision. Their relevance is political context: the companies are seeking favorable federal treatment from agencies that answer to the administration while also fighting state officials in court and lobbying state legislatures across the country.
For state policymakers, the immediate effect of the industry’s spending is practical. A company with lobbyists in 41 states can appear in hearings, meet with lawmakers and respond quickly when a bill moves. That matters in a sector where a single state law can become a test case for whether other states pursue bans, licensing requirements or taxes.
What happens next in the prediction-market lobbying fight?
The next concrete benchmark is the next round of federal lobbying disclosures, which will show whether Kalshi kept spending near its first-half pace and how much Polymarket and the Coalition for Prediction Markets added later in 2026. State disclosures will also show whether the 41-state lobbying footprint expands as more legislatures return to session.
On the regulatory side, the CFTC’s White House-reviewed prediction-market rules are the next major federal milestone. In court, Minnesota’s ban is blocked but still being litigated, Nevada has won an appellate ruling against Kalshi’s request to resume some contracts, and other state disputes continue to test whether federal derivatives law preempts gambling enforcement. The industry’s 2026 spending puts money behind one side of that fight, but the next binding answers are likely to come from court orders, CFTC rules and later lobbying disclosures.
