Prediction market polls find US voters prefer federal rules over state patchwork

A new pair of polls commissioned by the Coalition for Prediction Markets found that Republican and Democratic voters alike prefer a single federal framework for regulating prediction markets over a state-by-state approach.

According to a memo shared with The Block on Wednesday by the coalition, a survey of Republican voters conducted by Fabrizio Lee & Associates found that 48% favored a uniform federal framework compared with 27% who preferred each state to regulate prediction markets independently. 

A separate poll of voters conducted by Democratic polling firm Global Strategy Group found that 45% of Democrats preferred federal rules versus 35% who backed state oversight.

The Coalition's memo also found that only 8% of voters thought prediction market platforms should be illegal and that majorities on both sides supported the view that consumers should have the choice whether to participate in them.

Younger voters also appeared more receptive, with Global Strategy Group finding that more than half of respondents under 35 had expressed interest in or had already used prediction markets. 

Federal-state battlegrounds

The results come in as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket are locked in a tug-of-war with states over who has the ultimate authority over event contracts, especially those tied to sports.

On Tuesday, Kalshi sued Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and other state officials over a new law requiring prediction market operators to obtain a state license, arguing that the measure conflicts with federal law. Earlier on that same day, the CFTC sued Kentucky after state regulators accused Kalshi, Polymarket and others of operating illegal sports betting platforms.

CFTC Chair Michael Selig has argued the agency had "exclusive jurisdiction" over prediction markets, while states have maintained that sports-event contracts violate their local gambling laws.

Sports law attorney Daniel Wallach criticized the surveys' framing, arguing that they omitted sports betting, the main issue being disputed.

"Sports betting disguised as 'trading' is at the core of the dispute between the States and prediction markets," Wallach wrote on X. "Disingenuous to run a poll without that important detail."