Former senator Blanche Lincoln now lobbies to ease Kalshi restrictions
Former US Senator Blanche Lincoln, who helped draft the 2010 Dodd–Frank law and argued that sports betting through prediction markets should be prohibited, now lobbies for Kalshi to loosen restrictions on those markets. The shift matters as US courts weigh whether federal regulators can prevent states from applying their own gambling laws to prediction-market bets.
Lincoln’s lobbying firm has received $480,000 from Kalshi since 2024 to lobby Congress and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). As chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, she helped give the CFTC authority over event contracts and said it should prohibit contracts used mainly for gambling. The Trump administration has allowed sports-event contracts, prompting lawsuits in about 20 states; courts have reached differing conclusions, and the Supreme Court may ultimately decide the issue.
- Blanche Lincoln helped shape rules against gambling through event contracts.
- She now lobbies for Kalshi to loosen those rules.
- Lawsuits in about 20 states could reach the Supreme Court.
New here? Start with this
Prediction markets are platforms where people can place bets on the outcomes of specific events, from elections to sporting contests. These markets have been the subject of considerable regulatory debate in America, with fundamental legal questions about what the government can restrict or allow.
Blanche Lincoln is a former US senator who played a prominent role in drafting major financial regulations following the 2008 economic crisis. As chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, she helped establish the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's authority over event contracts and argued that contracts used mainly for gambling should be prohibited.
The regulatory status of prediction markets remains contested, with US courts currently examining whether federal authorities or individual states should determine the rules. The Trump administration has permitted sports-related prediction contracts, prompting lawsuits across roughly 20 states with differing legal outcomes, and the Supreme Court may eventually need to settle the matter.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Policy positions reasonably evolve when policymakers encounter better evidence and analysis; prediction markets provide genuine value through price discovery that Lincoln may have initially underestimated. Her current economic arguments—that properly regulated markets improve information efficiency and reduce drive to unregulated alternatives—are substantive, regardless of who funds her advocacy. Hiring someone based on their professional expertise and evolved views is standard practice, not evidence of corruption.
The case against
Lincoln moved from architect of restrictions to paid advocate for their reversal, a trajectory that exemplifies regulatory capture concerns. She was in a unique position to shape these rules as a Senate Agriculture Committee chair, and her subsequent reversal only after a substantial payment from an affected firm suggests financial incentive rather than reasoned evolution. This pattern is particularly troubling because former policymakers retain credibility and connections that outsiders lack, enabling them to reverse their own previous work after becoming financially interested in the outcome.
Americas Business Geopolitics Markets Politics World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Ars Technica as “A senator tried to ban gambling on prediction markets—now she’s a Kalshi lobbyist”.