1
00:00:02,202 --> 00:00:04,738
Reporting from Madison. I'm
Murv Seymour for here and

2
00:00:04,805 --> 00:00:07,374
Now.
>> Prediction betting

3
00:00:08,642 --> 00:00:12,179
markets draw billions in
wagers on everything from

4
00:00:12,246 --> 00:00:16,517
World Cup outcomes to now
elections. Kalshi, which

5
00:00:16,583 --> 00:00:19,653
describes itself as the
next generation financial

6
00:00:19,720 --> 00:00:23,457
exchange, this month
launched a midterms hub

7
00:00:23,524 --> 00:00:26,426
designed, they say, as the
one stop shop for state and

8
00:00:26,493 --> 00:00:29,663
federal election
forecasting and betting.

9
00:00:29,730 --> 00:00:32,699
Not so fast, says the
Wisconsin Elections

10
00:00:32,766 --> 00:00:35,135
Commission. Commissioner
Ann Jacobs is here, and

11
00:00:35,202 --> 00:00:38,372
thanks for being here.
>> Happy to be here.

12
00:00:38,438 --> 00:00:41,008
>> So the commission
recently put out some

13
00:00:41,074 --> 00:00:44,945
guidance to voters about
betting on the outcomes of

14
00:00:45,012 --> 00:00:47,814
elections. What did that
say?

15
00:00:48,949 --> 00:00:52,920
>> The guidance we sent out
to voters basically

16
00:00:52,986 --> 00:00:57,624
summarized what has been
Wisconsin law since about

17
00:00:57,691 --> 00:01:02,496
1849, which is you cannot
bet on an election and vote

18
00:01:03,163 --> 00:01:06,533
in that election.
>> So what are the

19
00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:10,137
penalties for putting a
wager on an election?

20
00:01:10,204 --> 00:01:12,639
>> There's two sort of
penalties for it. Number

21
00:01:12,706 --> 00:01:15,943
one is someone could
challenge your ballot and

22
00:01:16,009 --> 00:01:19,546
have it not count. And the
second one, which is far

23
00:01:19,613 --> 00:01:24,351
more draconian, is it is
actually a class I felony

24
00:01:24,418 --> 00:01:26,753
to bet and vote in the same
election.

25
00:01:26,820 --> 00:01:29,022
>> How would anyone find
out whether you had done

26
00:01:29,089 --> 00:01:31,892
that or not?
>> I get asked that

27
00:01:32,593 --> 00:01:36,430
question quite a bit, and
the answer is the same way

28
00:01:36,496 --> 00:01:41,301
crimes are reported to
authorities, of all types a,

29
00:01:42,870 --> 00:01:47,007
a spurned spouse or
boyfriend girlfriend, a

30
00:01:48,408 --> 00:01:53,514
disgruntled employee, an
agitated neighbor, someone

31
00:01:53,580 --> 00:01:56,884
who you promised to share
the money with and then

32
00:01:56,950 --> 00:01:59,953
didn't share the bet
results with. That's how

33
00:02:00,020 --> 00:02:02,422
these sort of things are
reported.

34
00:02:02,489 --> 00:02:06,260
>> How could betting on the
outcome warp the process,

35
00:02:06,326 --> 00:02:10,731
even tip the outcome?
>> There's a few ways it

36
00:02:10,797 --> 00:02:13,734
could. I mean, one of which
is sort of on the very

37
00:02:13,800 --> 00:02:17,571
personal level, you are no
longer voting for the

38
00:02:17,638 --> 00:02:19,840
person you think would be
best in the position you're

39
00:02:19,907 --> 00:02:22,876
now voting for someone who
can line your pockets. And

40
00:02:22,943 --> 00:02:25,746
that's a corruption of, of
the process on a very

41
00:02:25,812 --> 00:02:30,450
individual level. In theory,
you could have people

42
00:02:30,517 --> 00:02:34,988
within a, a campaign go out
to place bets to try to

43
00:02:37,457 --> 00:02:42,629
tilt the prediction markets
to create, a false sense of

44
00:02:42,696 --> 00:02:46,667
momentum or antipathy
towards a given candidate.

45
00:02:46,733 --> 00:02:49,436
So it could be an attempt
to manipulate it at a much

46
00:02:49,503 --> 00:02:51,205
larger level.
>> What about the argument

47
00:02:51,271 --> 00:02:53,807
that wagering on an
election actually gets

48
00:02:53,874 --> 00:02:56,410
people who wouldn't
ordinarily be interested in

49
00:02:56,476 --> 00:02:59,479
voting involved in the
process?

50
00:03:01,114 --> 00:03:04,618
>> I find that so odd. We
want them to come into the

51
00:03:04,685 --> 00:03:06,987
process to vote, not for
the person that they think

52
00:03:07,054 --> 00:03:12,025
is going to be best, but to
try to make money. That's

53
00:03:12,092 --> 00:03:15,229
sort of a warped view of
elections. We want people

54
00:03:15,295 --> 00:03:17,831
to vote. I want people to
vote. I hope everyone goes

55
00:03:17,898 --> 00:03:20,834
out and votes on August
11th, but I want you to go

56
00:03:20,901 --> 00:03:23,804
out and vote because you
believe that is going to be

57
00:03:23,871 --> 00:03:25,973
the best person for the job
at hand.

58
00:03:26,039 --> 00:03:30,844
>> What is your reaction to
Kalshi new midterms hub?

59
00:03:31,411 --> 00:03:36,316
>> I, you know, apparently
there is great enthusiasm

60
00:03:37,117 --> 00:03:40,654
for this, as I accidentally
learned by posting on

61
00:03:40,721 --> 00:03:45,025
social media about this law
and people take it quite

62
00:03:45,092 --> 00:03:48,595
seriously. I don't have any
opinion one way or another

63
00:03:48,662 --> 00:03:51,365
about prediction markets,
whether they're good or bad,

64
00:03:51,431 --> 00:03:55,369
legal or not. All I care
about is I don't want

65
00:03:55,435 --> 00:03:59,740
people to accidentally
commit a felony by voting

66
00:03:59,806 --> 00:04:03,010
and betting. You can vote.
You can bet you just can't

67
00:04:03,076 --> 00:04:05,746
do both.
>> Does this put the

68
00:04:05,812 --> 00:04:07,881
Wisconsin Elections
Commission squarely into a

69
00:04:07,948 --> 00:04:11,852
fight with a very, very
moneyed interest?

70
00:04:13,253 --> 00:04:16,323
>> I hope not, because
we're one of something like

71
00:04:16,390 --> 00:04:19,660
35 states that have this
same law. The policy behind

72
00:04:19,726 --> 00:04:24,198
the law is sound and has
been that case for 100 and

73
00:04:25,365 --> 00:04:28,602
however many years it's
been. So we really need to

74
00:04:28,669 --> 00:04:33,574
think about whether or not
we want our elections to be

75
00:04:34,408 --> 00:04:39,546
governed by money making or
by efficacy in government.

76
00:04:40,480 --> 00:04:42,916
>> On another matter, what
is your reaction to this

77
00:04:42,983 --> 00:04:45,686
week's court ruling that
upholds WECA guidance that

78
00:04:45,752 --> 00:04:49,423
you opposed, saying early
absentee voters can't get a

79
00:04:49,489 --> 00:04:52,259
do over even if their
candidate dropped out? Now,

80
00:04:52,326 --> 00:04:55,796
that's with nearly 130,000
early ballots cast and

81
00:04:55,863 --> 00:04:59,566
another candidate this week
dropping out.

82
00:04:59,633 --> 00:05:02,269
>> I was obviously very
disappointed in the outcome.

83
00:05:02,336 --> 00:05:06,006
I have been on the
commission since 2016. It

84
00:05:06,073 --> 00:05:10,644
was our guidance, at all
times until a court put it

85
00:05:12,045 --> 00:05:15,549
on hold. And now we've
issued this new guidance

86
00:05:15,616 --> 00:05:18,519
for the very first time
without alerting voters. It

87
00:05:18,585 --> 00:05:21,522
was coming. And I was very
disappointed in that

88
00:05:21,588 --> 00:05:24,725
outcome.
>> All right. We leave it