Opponents of sports betting prediction markets are working to overcome large campaign donations during the November midterms, as the operators seek to win influence over state and federal lawmakers.
Prediction markets and political money are converging in ways that could reshape the 2026 midterm elections, according to Victor Rocha, conference chair of the Indian Gaming Association, which hosted a webinar on the topic. Super PACs like Fairshake PAC and Win for America PAC are deploying significant capital to influence key races, policy outcomes, and the regulatory environment on prediction markets and cryptocurrency policy, he noted.
At the same time, prediction market operators and crypto-backed platforms are pushing deeper into political and event-based contracts, while members of the Sports Betting Alliance continue to fund state-by-state expansion efforts at the expense of tribal and commercial gaming licensed in states, Rocha said. These forces are not operating in isolation, but instead are advancing in parallel, with capital, technology, and policy pressure moving in the same direction.
“Money is everywhere,” Rocha said. “They have money and influence. For tribal gaming, the implications are direct. The future of tribal gaming is at stake. This is not just about new products entering the market. It is about how influence is being applied to elections, how legal frameworks are being tested, and how authority could shift outside of existing compact and regulatory systems. As these efforts accelerate, the risk is that decisions impacting tribal gaming are shaped without tribal participation or consent. We can’t do anything without money, unity, and everybody pointed in the right direction.”
The webinar examined where that pressure is coming from, how it is being applied, and how to fight back. Rocha co-hosted with Jason Giles, IGA’s executive director. The guests included IGA Chair David Bean and lobbyist Holly Cook Macarro, a principal at The Angle.
Macarro said the concern is they don’t know what the numbers are in terms of how much money opponents of prediction markets are facing. In contrast, IGA has a $2 million legal-defense fund.
“At the same time we’re reading that the opposition is spending $200 million in this cycle and we only have five months left,” Cook said. “The money is starting to flow and we’re going to see a huge impact from (the super PACs). I expect the impact of this money, at a scope we haven’t seen before, is critically important, not just for America’s election in general, but Indian gaming, because of what their priorities are and the direct impact these PACs have on our interests. If they lose in the courts, they’ll seek legislation. They’re playing the long game and at this point, we’re not quite playing the long game as they are.”
Bean said Cook nailed what they’re facing: “a giant that has millions of dollars to spend.” He called it concerning, but tribes are resilient and since they have a lot at stake, they will exhaust “every effort and resource to combat this. It’s frustrating, because we follow the laws and have built this industry through solid regulation. And here come prediction markets that are not subject to the same laws and regulations except self-certification (to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission).”
Bean said he’s worried about prediction market operators’ outreach to lawmakers in state and federal government. He added that tribes have good lawyers and others who are ready to take on this battle. “We have work to do. We have to keep our sleeves rolled up, charge ahead, and attack this issue from every angle possible.”
Rocha said when the public learns about these donations to candidates tied to prediction market operators, “there’s a stink about it and candidates don’t want anything to do with it.” The industry spent $20 million on the Illinois election cycle and lost, Rocha said. “Once people know there’s a taint to the processes, they have a tendency to vote against them.”
Giles speculated the prediction market group has anywhere from $250 million to $500 million to spend on the upcoming elections. He asked Cook at what point will that become too much, since it hasn’t been paying off so far with candidates risking being hurt by the association.
“They haven’t been entirely ineffective,” Cook said in response and prediction markets are giving money both to Democrats and Republicans.
Cook said the PACs weren’t always coordinated and have worked on opposite sides, but that will change in the future. She doesn’t think there is a “stink to them” yet in terms of the public looking at crypto and prediction markets.
“When these super PACs do independent expenditures, it’s about tearing down someone or propping up another,” Cook said. “It’s not necessarily about sports betting or prediction markets, but the candidates and what their weak and strong points are. It can be very difficult to see who is funding these candidates and what the interests are.”
Prediction markets are backed by the Trump administration and Giles said even if Democrats flip the House and Senate, the operators will turn their attention to the White House to stop any legislation hurting their industry.
“We’re ready for this,” Bean said. “We have a lot of folks working with us that are incredibly talented and engaged, like the American Gaming Association. Some 42 state attorney generals are lined up opposing this and filed lawsuits. We have to attack it from litigation to legislation.”
Cook said because it’s a midterm election instead of a general election for president, people aren’t always focused on certain issues, but given the state of politics in the country, “There’s a lot of engagement, whether you’re pro or against whatever issue of the day is. We like a fight and we’ve won them before.”
Bean said tribal sportsbooks across the country are already feeling a decline in sports revenue owing to prediction markets.
“Folks are starting to wake up because of the impact,” Bean said. “We have to stomp out (that wild fire). And when tribes come together, we’re very powerful.”
