For a few hours last month, the U.S. had a legally sanctioned marketplace to wager on which party would control Congress in 2025. If the company behind the market — Kalshi — gets its way, most people will soon be able to place bets on political outcomes 24 hours a day. That could include yours truly. Your MM host has been known to place unwise wagers on NFL games from time to time. And given the firehose of political and economic information that flows into my inbox, it would certainly be tempting to put money on the Nov. 5 outcome. (To be very clear, that will not happen.) Journalists aren’t specifically prohibited from betting on Kalshi’s event contract marketplace. The market’s rules do prohibit candidates, members of their staff, pollsters and other politically connected individuals from gambling. A wide range of professions whose platforms affect voter perceptions and policy — or otherwise influence political strategy — are not barred from participating. Overseas betting markets have been cited by political media — including here at MM — as a way to gauge sentiment around a candidate or race. But they also create potential monetary incentives for skewing coverage or analysis. The challenges and potential conflicts that such a marketplace could present to newsrooms, think tanks, political analysts, academics and economists are head-spinning. How does one separate a legal political wager from the incentive to influence its outcome? Even if institutions establish internal guardrails to prohibit trading, the arrival of these marketplaces opens the door to potential scandal. It’s far from clear to what extent newsroom leaders are even thinking about this issue. Semafor’s Ben Smith told MM that he didn’t “really want to play pundit.” Jelani Cobb, the longtime New Yorker journalist who is now dean of Columbia University’s journalism school, said he didn’t have enough insight to offer comment. “In politics, inside information is a very, very wide premise. And a lot of people are down to talk about that information,” said Walt Hickey, the Pulitzer Prize-winning founder of the Numlock newsletter and the executive editor of Sherwood News. “Is [information] that used to be gossip a year ago all of a sudden going to be material financial information that could land you in front of FINRA?” [Disclaimer: Hickey and I worked together on our college newspaper.] Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Rostin Behnam, whose agency would be tasked with regulating Kalshi’s election marketplace should it secure court approval, has warned that commoditized elections could “degrade the integrity of the uniquely American experience of participating in the democratic electoral process.” As Behnam has pointed out, it could lead the CFTC to apply its enforcement mechanisms to police election tactics that may manipulate markets. Kalshi’s attorneys have maintained that robust, regulated marketplaces are less susceptible to manipulation. Another challenge for regulators would be defining political market influencers and insider interests from the media, said Subramaniam Vincent, the director of journalism and media ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. “Which journalists, social media influencers, YouTubers, podcast hosts, company managers, and even media investors are we going to bar?” Vincent said. Doing so would echo the challenges social media companies faced in their attempts to bar political advertising, or limit political content, during elections. “Defining what is political was contested,” Vincent added. “What is political content is a cultural question and can be a blur. Trying to draw technical boundaries on it for policy reasons is itself too complicated. Attempting prohibition lists for political market bets is even harder.” IT’S TUESDAY — I’m liking the Tampa Bay Buccaneers +2.5 for Thursday Night Football. Then again, maybe I’ll stay away. Got tips? Send ‘em my way to ssutton@politico.com.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment