Every legislative session in Montgomery, one issue reliably fills hearing rooms and sparks long conversations back home: gambling. Constituents call our offices. Citizens visit the State House. Business owners testify. Lawmakers debate. The discussion is rarely simple, and it is never quiet. That is exactly how decisions that affect Alabama communities should be made.
Recently, a new issue has entered the conversation. Our methodically process is being upended by the rise of so-called “prediction markets.”
A growing number of online platforms now allow Americans to put money on the outcomes of sporting events. Instead of calling it sports betting, they describe it as prediction. Instead of working with state regulators, they claim authority from a federal financial regulator. And instead of going through the legislative process, they argue they can operate nationwide.
For those of us who spend our days in the Legislature, that raises an obvious question: what happens to the role of elected representatives if major policy decisions can be made outside the legislative process?
In Alabama, gambling policy has never been settled easily. We have taken a cautious approach shaped by years of debate and by conversations in communities across our state. People disagree on the right path forward, and that is perfectly appropriate. What matters is that the decision belongs to Alabamians and the representatives they elect.
The current push by prediction market platforms would move this debate somewhere else entirely. These companies point to approval from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an agency created to oversee commodities markets such as agriculture, energy and financial derivatives. Its mission is to protect the integrity of complex financial trading. It was never designed to regulate sports wagering.
In states that have legalized sports betting, operators invest heavily to meet licensing requirements. They pay taxes, support responsible gaming programs and submit to audits and oversight. Those systems did not appear overnight. They were built through deliberate policymaking and public debate.
Prediction markets openly flout those rules. They advertise “legal sports betting in all 50 states”. Allowing unlicensed platforms to bypass those rules creates an uneven playing field. It also leaves states without the consumer protections and oversight that accompany licensed gaming.
I support innovation and free markets. But innovation should complement the democratic process, not replace it. When the rules change, the public deserves a voice in how those changes happen.
Congress has a role to play here, and I hope it will act to clarify that federal commodities regulators were not intended to oversee sports wagering. Those agencies have an important mission already. Expanding it into gambling would be a mistake.
State sovereignty is more than a talking point. It is a cornerstone of our constitutional system. And it is worth defending, especially when it comes to decisions that so directly affect our communities.
The people who sent me to Montgomery expect their voices to shape decisions like these. That responsibility should remain where it has always belonged.