Americans who are skeptical of political betting markets argue that they should be illegal.

A recent poll conducted by Politico has uncovered intriguing insights into how Americans perceive prediction markets, particularly in relation to political event contracts.

Originally designed to assess political polls and their accuracy, prediction market platforms, now more mainstream with sports event contracts, are facing growing skepticism from many Americans. A Politico poll indicates that a significant portion of U.S. adults believe political betting markets should not be legal. People have particularly criticized options like betting on Who President Donald Trump will pardon or predicting the outcome of the 2028 presidential election. Politico referenced past findings on public attitudes toward prediction markets, citing data from 2024 voters. They estimated that 29% of Americans view prediction markets negatively, while 19% see them positively. Opposition to these markets is more common across both Trump and Harris supporters than support.

The latest poll builds on previous findings, offering a detailed look at how public opinion has shifted. It reveals that 44% of adults believe betting on elections should be banned. Among those surveyed, 64% think it should be illegal to place bets on acts of terrorism. A similar sentiment holds for betting on war outcomes, with 57% agreeing it should be prohibited. Additionally, 43% said presidential pardons should be banned from betting, and 40% think predictions on presidential statements or media reports should also be restricted. While prediction markets may be moving away from political bets, there isn't overwhelming opposition to all event contracts these platforms may offer. A notable portion of the public still enjoys sports prediction markets (53%), weather forecasts (46%), and award shows (45%). Opinions are divided on betting on gas price fluctuations, with 35% for and against this type of contract.