Almost a year before the 2024 election, the question of whether bets should be allowed on congressional races is being debated. The idea has civic-engagement groups worried.

A little-known government agency is playing a key role in deciding whether gambling and elections should mix. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has been asked by the trading platform Kalshi to allow such bets through so-called "event contracts." They'd be limited to betting on which party will control Congress in future elections.

However, Stephen Spaulding, vice president for policy at the group Common Cause, said this would put even more pressure on the health of democracy in current political environment.

"This opens up a significant risk to the perception that the winners and losers of an election are not determined by voters, but by those who stand to gain financially," he said.

Common Cause has sent a filing to the commission, asking that it reject the proposal. Leadership with the House Task Force on Strengthening Democracy issued a similar request. Rep. Marc Pocan, D-Wis., is on the task force but declined comment.

Supporters of the idea have said the forecasting could help small businesses protect their interests while benefiting researchers. However, Spaulding said the world of politics is still reeling from the 2010 Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. When you add gambling to the equation, he said, big spenders could hold sway over the process in an even bigger way.

"You can imagine a situation where an entity that is now able to spend money on elections post-Citizens United then places an enormous wager on the outcome of the election," he said, "and also funnels resources through Super PACs or other dark money vehicles to influence the outcome of an election."

Last year, Kalshi sought CFTC approval for bets to be placed on the 2022 midterms, but it ultimately withdrew its plan when commission staff raised concerns and recommended rejecting the proposal.

Support for this reporting was provided by Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

The 2024 presidential election has raised complex emotions for incarcerated Ohioans, many of whom are unable to vote but remain deeply engaged in political discussions.

As a group often left out of political discourse, their views on the election reflect a broader desire for involvement in decisions that directly affect their lives.

Nicole Lewis, engagement editor for The Marshall Project, talked about the findings of its new survey of Ohio's incarcerated population.

"Many of the people who oversee the system are elected officials, sheriffs, judges, district attorneys," Lewis observed. "and so incarcerated people have a really unique perspective on how well the people in those roles are executing their jobs."

The presidential election held particular significance this year, with concerns about criminal justice reform, sentencing policies and who can participate in elections. Despite limited news access, many voiced strong opinions about candidates, especially former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor.

Lewis noted the broader implications of the political divide, especially in how those inside view figures like Trump and Harris.

"Many, many people told us, 'How can I move forward?'" Lewis reported. "'How can I believe that society would want me back if they're so willing to cast Donald Trump aside and make his felony convictions a complete disqualification for public office?'"

While people in prison in Ohio may not have had the opportunity to vote in the 2024 election, advocates said their voices and perspectives are crucial to understanding the political landscape. Their insights, shaped by years behind bars, are particularly relevant as more individuals regain the right to vote upon release and the effects of their views could shape the future of both criminal justice reform and electoral engagement nationwide.


get more stories like this via email

Wisconsinites overwhelmingly voted 'yes' on a record number of school funding measures, according to a new Wisconsin Policy Forum study. The appeals essentially asked voters to increase their own property taxes to fund school operations across the state. Voters favored a record number 169 referendums, authorizing a record total of $4.4 billion in new funding for 145 school districts.

Denise Gaumer Hutchison, Northwest regional organizer with the Wisconsin Public Education Network, said districts are being forced to take their needs to the ballot box to fund gaps between prioritizing students and overdue bills.

"The first responsibility of our public schools across the state is to educate children and to take care of the kids and the families they serve, every single day," she said. "So, that means any available funds that public schools have they put toward educating children. And so, if that means a boiler has to be patched rather than replaced, that's what they're going to do."

Almost half of the state's 421 school districts passed a referendum in April or November. Hutchison blames the state for not adequately funding school priorities, from building maintenance, to student mental-health services. The state superintendent announced last week the proposed 2025-27 budget would include $4 billion more in spending for public schools.

Despite 78% of the ballot measures passing, Hutchson said the districts where voters turned them down are in dire need of support to keep their doors open. Regardless of whether taxpayers have children in public schools, she says, the focus should be on providing every Wisconsin student with a quality education.

"I want their experience in public schools to be as awesome as my 25 and 26-year-old's were. I want them to get to be able to participate in sports, in theater, in drama and DECA, and learn about the history of our state and our country, and think about what our state and our country can be," she continued.

The study found factors like inflation outpacing the state allocated per-student revenue limits, the loss of pandemic aid and staff competition in a tight labor market are all factors that contributed to the record number of referendums.


get more stories like this via email

The presidential vote was close in Nevada and with the results in, local organizations leaning more progressive believe the re-election of Donald Trump could put much of the progress made in the Silver State in jeopardy.

Shelbie Swartz, executive director of Battle Born Progress, said Nevadans should take Trump's campaign promises seriously. She called on leaders in Carson City and in Congress to "stand up for their constituents," whom she argued a Trump administration could target, from immigrants to people who identify as transgender.

"If your values change based on polling, if your willingness to fight for the dignity of all Nevadans does not extend to our transgender siblings, then those are not values," Swartz contended. "They're talking points drafted in pencil."

Swartz stressed she has faith in the Nevada Legislature to pass bills to uphold and protect the rights of Nevadans but added the biggest challenge will be seeing what can make it across Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo's desk. Last year, Lombardo, who endorsed Donald Trump, vetoed a record 75 bills passed by the Legislature's Democratic majority.

Trump campaigned on the idea of mass deportations and has doubled down on the threat since his win.

Leo Murrieta, executive director of the group Make the Road Action Nevada, said it is time for leaders who are ready to move beyond what he calls "fear-based policies," to advocate instead for immigration reform, including clearer, earned pathways to citizenship.

"It is time for leaders to see our community as an integral part of this country's fabric, not just a political talking point," Murrieta argued. "We are standing united with many other groups ready to resist any of the policies and any of the other threats that we're certainly going to face."

A new report from the American Immigration Council found a one-time mass deportation operation would cost the United States at least $315 billion to remove more than 13 million people.