In today’s edition … Trump pushes for a debate in the Texas Senate race … your thoughts on presidential families benefiting from their connections … but first …
Read more The midterms are getting close. Why is Trump in Upstate New York?
Democrat Troy Jackson has a slight edge over Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a new Washington Post-Schar School poll finds. The race in Maine is arguably the most closely watched of the cycle and the Democrats’ best chance of knocking off a Republican incumbent.
Jackson holds 50 percent of likely voters compared with Collins’s 46 percent in the poll of about 800 likely voters conducted Sept. 30 to Oct. 5. Jackson’s lead is within the range of sampling error.
Our colleagues Liz Goodwin and Scott Clement have a full report on the poll.
“Only two things matter in American politics,” reads a quote widely attributed to former senator Mark Hanna (R-Ohio). “The first is money, and I can’t remember what the other one is.”
Hanna died in 1904, well before prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket gave new meaning to money in politics. One imagines he would have thoughts.
The prediction markets allow users to place a bet — or make a “trade” in the prediction market parlance — on everything from which party will win a Senate majority in the midterms to the outcomes of individual elections.
The platforms boast millions of users, who have traded nearly two hundred billion dollars just in the last quarter, according to CryptoRank. And amid concerns that political insiders, and even lawmakers, might use privileged knowledge to make money, there’s a new wave of efforts to regulate the platforms.
At the federal level, Rep. Don Davis (D-North Carolina) introduced a bill this week seeking to ban federal candidates from trading on their own elections. His Republican opponent in the midterms was suspended for three years by Kalshi for trading on her own candidacy.
“We don’t want our athletes to bet on their games. A candidate running for federal elected office should be treated exactly the same and should not be allowed to trade on their own election,” said Davis in announcing the bill.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) introduced a bill in March that would go even further, banning anybody from trading on “government actions, terrorism, war, assassination, and events where an individual knows or controls the outcome.” The bill was referred to committees in both the House and Senate, where it is still awaiting approval or rejection.
Senators have barred themselves and their staffers from using prediction markets, meaning incumbent senators are legally forbidden from trading on their own races. But the vote did not affect candidates not already in office or members of the House, which advanced a similar bill out of committee in June but has yet to act on it.
At the state level, 23 states have banned election betting completely, while nine states have partially restricted the practice. But complicating matters is the fact that it’s unclear whether participating in prediction markets counts as betting.
Platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket say it doesn’t, because they don’t operate like traditional gambling outfits, in which bettors are gambling against the “house.” Instead, prediction market users are betting against each other, with the platform profiting through transaction fees. The federal agency that oversees prediction markets — the Commodity Futures Trading Commission — agrees, arguing that predictions trades are swaps, not bets.
But courts in Nevada and Michigan have forced Kalshi and Polymarket to cease operations, at least partially, under the states’ anti-gambling laws, and the platforms are being challenged under similar laws across the country. Yesterday, the NFL urged the Supreme Court to take up a case on whether state gambling laws apply to prediction markets, with the football league arguing that prediction markets are a form of gambling.
To some, the argument of whether prediction markets feature gambling or swaps is beside the point: Users are putting money on the outcome of events and, thus, have a vested interest in those events. And however the markets are classified, an opportunity for profiting on inside information exists.
For instance, a Special Forces soldier with access to classified information on the U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro was accused of placing a Polymarket bet on Maduro being removed from office shortly before the operation. There have been numerous similarly suspiciously timed bets on the conflict with Iran. Even President Donald Trump’s teleprompter operator got in trouble after reportedly using insider knowledge to make bets on Trump’s speeches on prediction markets.
“We have a corruption crisis in America, and prediction markets are making it worse,” Casar told the Early Brief.
Congress, which is currently on recess, has a lot to accomplish in its remaining days in session before year’s end, from a bill on farming to legislation funding the government. It’s unclear whether lawmakers will turn their attention to regulating prediction markets this year. But the issue shows no signs of going away — making it likely you’ll hear about this again next year.
Read more Democratic women’s caucus demands Trump administration changes after Cornell accusations
Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has actively avoided debating Democratic State Rep. James Talarico in the hotly contested Texas Senate race. The Democrat has accepted five debate offers, while the Republican has declined all five.
Enter Trump, who yesterday called for the two to meet on the debate stage, while asking why the Democrat has been off the campaign trail recently.
Trump wrote that Talarico “should immediately report to a Debate Stage against Ken Paxton, who is ready, willing, and able. …” Talarico’s campaign said he has the flu but will be back campaigning this weekend.
Talarico relished Trump’s comment.
“President Trump just said Ken Paxton should debate. I agree. Ball’s in your court @KenPaxtonTX,” Talarico wrote on X. Last month, the Democrat posted a video online that showed him calling Paxton directly and leaving a voicemail asking him to debate.
“Texans start voting in less than a month, and they deserve to hear from both of us before they do,” Talarico said in the video. “We haven’t heard from you, and we’re running out of time.”
This is why Trump’s comment is so odd. By demanding a debate, Trump is both putting the debate storyline back in the news and forcing Paxton to either relent and agree to a debate or explain why he doesn’t want to share a stage with his opponent.
My colleague Matthew Choi — newsletter contributor emeritus — has more on this.
Missouri Independent: Voters in Missouri approved abortion rights protections in 2024. Those opposed to abortion rights are leaning on questions about transgender care for minors to overturn that vote two years later.
Westword: A food shortage in Colorado has increased the number of orphaned black bear cubs in the Western state. “Extreme drought conditions have limited natural forage in the higher elevations,” said one expert.
VT Digger: After opponents successfully challenged a Vermont law regulating AI-generated material during an election season, the state has been awash in so-called “slopaganda.”
We asked yesterday about an effort to investigate whether presidential children were benefiting from their ties to the White House. And most of you said you’re eager to see Trump’s children investigated — while a handful were reflexively protective of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.
“Yes to investigating family members,” wrote Diana Roberts. “Hunter, Don Jr, Eric and Jared. These are just the most visible at the moment. Shameful and criminal.”
“Hunter Biden has been thoroughly investigated. It is not a crime to ask for a favor, only to trade money or something else for the favor. It is a crime for a President to GRANT favors and money to kids,” wrote David Rieck.
“I’ve no problem with investigating children, as long as one also investigates spouses, siblings, parents, and mistresses too. I can’t think of a president in my lifetime who hasn’t had issues raised about family members,” wrote Fred Collignon. “I believe family members of the rich and powerful always gain more access, influence, and offers of moneymaking.”
That said, not all are eager for investigations to dominate the next two years if Democrats take control.
“I came of age politically during the Senate Watergate hearings which were both riveting and educational. Nearly every minute today is filled with preening by members of the ‘world’s greatest deliberative body.’ What’s the point?” asked Paul Gutermann.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, and Sen. Steve Daines, a Montana Republican, have proposed modernizing Senate procedure to fix what they argue is a legislative body “hamstrung by … tangled rules.” Their primary proposal is an expedited process to pass truly bipartisan bills. What do you think? Should Senate procedure be updated? Let me and your fellow Early Brief readers know at [email protected].
Read more Texas Senate nominee James Talarico makes first public appearance this month
Thanks for reading. You can follow me on X at @merica.
