A bill introduced in the House on Monday would make it a civil offense, carrying a $10,000 fine per violation, for federal candidates — or their spouses, dependent children and authorized committees — to trade prediction market contracts on their own elections.

Representative Don Davis (D-NC) filed the No Betting on Your Own Race Act, which would amend federal election law to impose the larger of a $10,000 civil penalty or three times the net financial gain from any prohibited trade. The ban would apply to conduct from the date of enactment.

"We don't want our athletes to bet on their games," Davis wrote on X. "Candidates from different political parties have traded on their own races, and Congress must bring an end to it."

How broad is the prohibition?

The bill draws the prohibition widely. It covers:

• The candidate, a spouse, a dependent child and any authorized committee.
• Contracts settling on who wins the race, whether a person remains a candidate at all, and the candidate's vote share, margin or placement.
• Indirect exposure, including inducing another person to trade, holding a beneficial interest however it is titled, or funding someone else's position while knowing its purpose.

The definition of a political event contract in the text runs beyond individual races. It takes in caucuses, nominations, control of Congress and any other political or governmental event the Commodity Futures Trading Commission designates by rule.

What does the bill require of platforms?

Much of the text targets the exchanges rather than the candidates. Platforms and their staff would face no penalty under the section, and they would be shielded from liability for acting in good faith to stop a breach. That protection covers restricting, suspending or closing an account, and cancelling, voiding or unwinding a position.

Exchanges could report suspected violations to the CFTC, the attorney general or the Federal Election Commission without liability — and without notifying the person reported. That reporting shield gives platforms a clear operational path: screen, unwind, report.

To make screening feasible, the FEC would have to publish a free, machine-readable list of every federal candidate, updated at least weekly. Each entry would carry the person's name, commission identifier, the office sought and the dates they entered and left the race. The commission and state election boards would also be required to notify candidates of the rules at the moment they file.

Is there a divestment grace period?

Yes, of a limited kind. Holding or selling a position that becomes a covered contract when someone declares a candidacy would not count as an offense during whatever minimum divestment window the platform itself allows. The bill leaves the length of that window to exchange policy rather than fixing a federal deadline.

What has enforcement looked like so far?

To date, exchanges have largely policed the issue themselves. Kalshi fined multiple congressional candidates earlier this year over bets on their own races and has suspended candidates since. The CFTC is separately investigating former Representative Adam Kinzinger over trades tied to his own presidential pardon, and agency staff warned exchanges last month that contracts settling on the conduct of named individuals should be presumed open to manipulation.

For operators such as Kalshi and Polymarket, the bill would convert a voluntary compliance posture into a statutory safe harbor, with a federally maintained candidate registry lowering the cost of identity screening. For candidates, it would add a quantified civil penalty — $10,000 or treble gains — to conduct that currently risks only platform-level discipline.

The measure now awaits committee referral. Its fate depends on whether self-regulation by exchanges, coupled with the CFTC's manipulation warnings, is judged insufficient — or whether Congress waits for the first high-profile enforcement case to force the question.