What This Bill Does
The Stop Lawmakers From Predicting Act would bar Members of Congress, along with their spouses and dependent children, from entering prediction-market contracts tied to government policy, government action, political outcomes, or other events learned through congressional service. It adds a new subchapter to chapter 131 of title 5, United States Code, and gives supervising ethics offices authority to issue guidance and enforce the rules. Violations would trigger a fee of at least $2,000 or 10% of the value of the transaction, whichever is greater, plus any net gain realized. The bill would take effect 180 days after enactment.
- Creates a new ban in chapter 131 of title 5 on certain prediction-market trades by Members of Congress and their families.
- Covers a Member of Congress, a spouse, and a dependent child as “covered individuals.”
- Applies to contracts tied to government policy, government action, political outcomes, or events learned through congressional service.
- Sets a penalty of $2,000 or 10% of the deal’s value, whichever is greater, plus any net gain.
- Takes effect 180 days after enactment.
Who This Bill Affects
If you are not a Member of Congress, a spouse of one, or a dependent child in that household, this bill would not change your day-to-day rights or finances. If you are in that narrow group, it would bar you from prediction-market trades tied to government policy, political outcomes, or events learned through congressional service, and violations could trigger a fee of at least $2,000 or 10% of the transaction value, plus any net gain. Official office funds and campaign-related money could not be used to pay that penalty.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Government ethics advocates They would argue the bill closes a credibility gap by preventing lawmakers and close family members from profiting on information tied to congressional service. A clear ban and penalty can reassure the public that elected officials are not using insider knowledge to bet on politics or policy.
- Voters concerned about congressional self-dealing Supporters can say the bill is a straightforward anti-corruption measure. By covering spouses and dependent children, it tries to prevent evasion through household accounts and reduce the appearance that public office is being used for private gain.
- Market integrity and compliance professionals They may support the bill because it draws a bright line for a fast-changing financial product. A rule with a defined penalty and ethics-office guidance could reduce ambiguity for brokers, platforms, and officeholders about what trades are off-limits.
- Members of Congress with broad investment activity Opponents may argue the bill is overly broad because it reaches trades tied to events that merely came to a member’s attention through congressional service, even if unrelated to formal duties. They may worry that the rule sweeps in legitimate family financial activity and creates difficult compliance questions.
- Civil liberties and due-process skeptics They may object that the enforcement scheme relies heavily on ethics-office interpretation and discretion, including what counts as an aggravating or mitigating circumstance. In their view, that could make the boundaries of prohibited conduct less predictable.
- Some political market participants They could contend that restricting lawmakers and families removes knowledgeable participants from prediction markets and may reduce liquidity or the informational value of those markets. They may also argue that existing ethics and disclosure rules already address most misuse risks.
Key Implications
-
““No covered individual may enter into... an agreement... dependent on... a political outcome””
This directly prohibits lawmakers and their families from using prediction markets to wager on election results or other political events that affect payouts.
-
““any other event... as a result... of the service of a Member of Congress””
This clause reaches events learned through congressional work even if they are not a formal legislative matter, broadening the ban beyond only obvious policy bets.
-
““$2,000 or ten percent of the value... whichever is greater””
The penalty is set to be meaningful even for smaller trades, while scaling up for larger ones. It also makes the cost automatic in addition to any profits that must be surrendered.
-
““may not pay any of the penalties... from” office accounts or contributions”
This prevents office budgets and campaign-related funds from being used to cover the sanction, so the financial burden falls on the individual rather than on public or political accounts.
-
““effective... 180 days after the date of enactment””
If enacted, the law would not be immediate; lawmakers and ethics offices would have six months to adjust compliance systems and issue guidance before the restrictions begin.
Latest Status
June 18, 2026
Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.