NC Rep Introduces Bill Banning Candidates From Trading Their Own Election Contracts

Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C., wants candidates to stop betting on their own elections. On Monday, he introduced the “No Betting on Your Own Race Act” during a pro forma session of the House of Representatives, a bill that would target candidates for federal office who trade on prediction market contracts related to their own races.

The measure follows a penalty paid by Davis’ opponent, Laurie Buckhout, who was found by Kalshi to have traded on contracts tied to her own election. Buckhout settled with Kalshi in August, paying a penalty of just under $2,600 and being suspended for three years. She described the trade as “I bet on myself. Literally.”

Davis responded on X: “a disqualifying breach of public trust.”

The Bill’s Penalty

Under the bill, violators would face a fine of $10,000 or an amount equal to three times the net financial gain from the violation — whichever is larger.

The legislation is a direct response to Buckhout’s case. Kalshi found that she traded on contracts related to her election, and the settlement included both a financial penalty and a suspension.

A Senate Precedent That Skips Candidates

In April, the Senate approved a resolution banning senators and staff from trading on prediction markets. Kalshi and Polymarket praised the move.

But the resolution did not cover candidates running for the U.S. Senate who are not incumbents. The Senate measure applies only to current officeholders and staff, leaving candidates entirely outside its scope.

That distinction matters for Buckhout, who is running for a seat she does not currently hold. The Senate resolution did not apply to her, even though Kalshi found her guilty of the same behavior.

| | Davis’ Bill | Senate Resolution |
|—|—|
| Who is covered | Candidates for federal office | Senators and staff |
| Who is excluded | None specified | Candidates running for the U.S. Senate who are not incumbents |
| Penalty | $10,000 or three times net gain | Not specified in the source |

The Senate’s Move and Its Limitations

The Senate resolution was passed in April. Kalshi and Polymarket praised the move, which applies only to current officeholders and staff.

The House has not passed a similar ban, though resolutions to do so have been proposed. The comparison between the two chambers shows a gap: the Senate banned its own members and staff, while the House is now targeting candidates.

That gap is precisely what Davis is trying to close with his bill. He is arguing that the rules should apply to everyone who runs for federal office, not just those who already hold it.

Timing Against Implementation

The House and Senate are not scheduled to meet until after the midterm elections, making implementation unlikely for this cycle.

That timing means the bill will not affect this year’s races. Any candidates who violate the rule between now and November will face the consequences of their own choices, not the law.

The Comparison Between Chambers

The Senate banned its own members and staff. Now Davis is targeting candidates. That is a sensible approach to a new problem, and it deserves to pass.

Whether it does is another question. The House has not moved on this issue before, and the midterms are looming. But the bill is on the books, and the precedent is set. Buckhout paid her penalty, and now Davis is asking everyone else to play by the same rules.

Where the paper stands

The paper backs no candidate issue as a team and judges each issue against its north star of individual freedom, small business and no concentrations of power, so it says nothing about the specific penalty paid by Buckhout or the bill introduced by Davis. The paper’s concern here is the concentration of power, not the merits of any single candidate’s case.

The bill targets a real problem — candidates profiting from their own election outcomes — but it does so through a mechanism that involves a third party settling disputes, which raises questions about whether government should rely on private companies to define and enforce campaign conduct.

The bill’s reliance on a third-party settlement process is worth watching. The paper would prefer clear, transparent rules set by elected representatives themselves, rather than penalties determined by a company’s judgment. The Senate’s resolution applied only to current officeholders and staff, leaving candidates uncovered — a gap Davis aims to fill. Whether the House can match the Senate’s action remains to be seen, but the principle of closing gaps in campaign rules is sound.

Source material: “House Democrat targets candidate prediction market trades after opponent’s Kalshi penalty,” CNBC.

bans · Congress · elections · politics · prediction markets