Senators ban themselves from prediction markets after candidates bet on own races

Senator decries "blatant, brazen corruption," wants to target Trump admin next.

See full article...

 

[Korios]

To believe this you need to imagine:

Politicians don't know how many volunteers they can mobilize, they don't know how many donations they've raised, they don't know how their voter outreach efforts are going, they haven't commissioned a private poll, they don't know they have oppo research they're going to leak to the press in an October surprise, they don't know that the press just reached out to them regarding a scandal they're about to publish.

Athletes don't know their health issues, they don't know their teammates' health issues... I imagine there's plenty of other things they could know, but I'm not in that space.

I covered some of these in my earlier reply to you, which I wrote before reading your reply. Winning can be manipulated, as I mentioned, by these and other factors, but unlike losing it can never be fully, 100% guaranteed.

"Throwing a match by winning", by pretending to be the underdog athlete or politician, and having nearly everyone bet against you, might make sense for some, since they'd get both the money and the title. It's not impossible, but it's way harder to pull, and requires long term planning. Losing can be decided in a single instant, with no prep.

Still, self-betting allows for both scenarios, so it should be illegal.

 

[Tactical Finesse]

Why the spouse part? They'd be strongly incentivized to kill even a thriving career if they're not in the top 1%.

Most already are in the top 1%, already.

That top 1% threshhold is a lot lower than people think. If you're not a multimillionaire odds are you aren't winning a congressional primary or election--unless your opponent is somehow less popular than the rats that got really spicey in the 1300s.

 

[Korios]

As mentioned elsewhere (this thread or the other prediction market thread) since you can just give money to people, if betting on yourself to win was legal, you could just give money to players on the other team to throw the game.

Indeed, and if you were a widely expected to lose underdog that would be highly profitable.
So self-betting of either form can be easily manipulated; no need for my imagined long-term scheming.

 

[Hecuba]

It took some digging because Congress.gov doesn't have the text of the bill yet.

But here's the testimony....which edits Rule XXXVII Conflicts of Interest.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/issue-76/senate-section/article/S2151-1

https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate

And nowhere do see anything about penalties other than maybe a nastigram. It is a "rule" that can be ignored by whomever happens to be the majority in power ruling the committees.

That's generally how Congressional ethics requirements are done:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. (A1S5)

They also get the P&I clause. Both elements are there to prevent weaponizing Executive or Judicial power against Congressional opponents.

 

[hildey328]

Cool....NOW ban everyone ELSE

 

[numerobis]

Self-betting is disallowed because if it was okay people could bet against themselves (alone or as a part of a scheme with others), lose deliberately and make 100% guaranteed money - a crapload of it, in fact, if they were the most popular candidate. That option and ability to throw the match or race is the only "insider" part, unlike conventional insider trading.

No matter what "insider information" politicians (or athletes) have, a win is never fully guaranteed. But even if it was 99% guaranteed, much of that insider information should agree with external polls. So if the politician was considered the most favorite to win, and ended up winning, they'd make peanuts from self-betting if they bet they'd win, since most bets would be in their favor.

Put another way, you can only throw a match/race by losing. Throwing it by winning is not a thing*. But since self-betting cannot be restricted to wins only, it is disallowed.

*On second thought it could be, for both athletes and politicians, but the scheme would need to be far more complex, time-consuming and elaborate: Instead of being the overwhelming favorite to win, and losing on purpose, a candidate would need to be the least expected to win, an underdog.

An athlete would have needed to spend years deliberately underperforming in public, while performing great in private. Similarly, a lukewarm candidate politician would need to have kept a low profile for quite a while, then pulling a political ace card when it mattered and/or successfully attacking with smear campaigns or scandals their opponents. Far more difficult, with still not a 100% guaranteed win, but not impossible. So either way self-betting should not be a thing.

Insider trading doesn’t require 100% success rate to be problematic. If it did, then no insider trading of any kind would be problematic, since there’s always a risk that your insider knowledge turns out to be irrelevant due to some massive external event.

 

[dciskey]

Nobody has insider information on elections (outside of a candidate deciding to tank/drop out). This is a strong reasons for people to be allowed to bet on election outcomes.

People are already manipulating prediction markets to influence elections:
View: https://youtu.be/e0nsou-1Q2k?t=777
(the whole video is excellent and worth a watch/listen).

 

[jezra]

how much jail time will they get for breaking a theatrical pinky swear?

 

[s73v3r]

Nobody has insider information on elections (outside of a candidate deciding to tank/drop out). This is a strong reasons for people to be allowed to bet on election outcomes.

Nope. You have not provided a compelling reason why people should be allowed to bet on elections.

 

[crepuscularbrolly]

Just distracting from the fact they do the same thing with their brokerage accounts, using inside information.

And that's a bigger payoff, with long term effects. Prediction markets just offer one-time bets.

 

[brionl]

a low level clerk, or an enlisted member of the armed forces

So no 401K, or IRA or other investments? How about retirement plans for public employees?

 

[Derecho Imminent]

I still say bet on Trump to not be impeached. If he isnt impeached then you collect your winnings, and if he is then you got your money's worth.

 

[graylshaped]

Nope. You have not provided a compelling reason why people should be allowed to bet on elections.

I don't care if someone wants to have friendly (or otherwise) wagers with neighbors.

I have a big problem with putting a veneer of regulatory approval on an industry whose only difference from a floating crap game is that they aren't hiding in the sewer where they belong.

 

[Flying Officer Ives]

“For $100, I just got more attention from CNN, Fox, WSJ, etc than any media consultant ever,”

You didn’t pay $100, you paid six grand. Dumbass.

 

[Sulla]

US blocks states from regulating

No corruption here, move along.