Paid prediction market influencers spread LA fraud claims

paid prediction – Influencers paid through prediction market partnerships have posted unfounded claims that fraud is stealing the Los Angeles mayoral race from Spencer Pratt. Kalshi asked some paid partners to remove the posts; one paid post remains up, while other non-paid con

For prediction markets, the promise is simple: place a bet, watch it trade, and let prices reflect what people think will happen next. But this week, the attention is being pulled toward something messier—paid promotions that drift from forecasting into conspiracy.

Several conservative influencers paid to promote prediction markets have been posting baseless claims that an election taking place in Los Angeles is being stolen from Republican candidate Spencer Pratt, with no proof of fraud.

The posts arrived under the banner of paid partnerships with betting markets that are accepting wagers on the race’s outcome.

Kalshi and Polymarket have both leaned heavily on influencer marketing to attract bettors. Polymarket, in particular, has spent at least $2.5 million on roughly 800 influencers to promote its site.

Polymarket says that approach is about expanding outreach, not manipulating the information in the market. A Polymarket spokesperson said the company “routinely collaborate[s] with a diverse range of independent organizations. partners. and content creators spanning the political spectrum” and “constantly monitor[s]. evaluate[s] our progress. and make[s] the necessary adjustments” to provide “the most accurate. transparent. and data-driven market insights to a global audience.”.

What those claims have not come with—at least in the examples now under scrutiny—is evidence.

One of the accounts posting conspiracy theories is David Freeman, who posts under the name Gunther Eagleman. He wrote a post that accused California of cheating in the Los Angeles mayoral race while simultaneously quote-tweeting Kalshi’s odds on who would win the election.

Another conservative influencer, Matt Van Swol, has promoted similar messaging in tweets clearly marked as a paid partnership with Kalshi.

In one paid partnership post, Kangmin Lee voiced issues with mail-in ballots, also under that paid banner.

The immediate response from Kalshi was limited but direct. Kalshi asked its paid partners to remove some posts. A Kalshi spokesperson, Dani Lever, said, “We’ve asked these to be taken down, as they violate our affiliate marketing policies.”

Still, not everything disappeared. Lee’s paid post is still up. A post from right-wing influencer Benny Johnson is also still up, despite the fact that Johnson has “never had an issue pushing misinformation.”

Even after Kalshi’s request, one key account—Eagleman—appears to be continuing the same theme outside of paid promotion. The pattern described is that Eagleman has continuously posted unfounded conspiracy theories about the race in non-paid posts.

Polymarket has not publicly commented on the issue.

The question hanging over the episode is whether platforms can do more than demand removals through their own affiliate rules. Robin Hanson. a professor of economics at George Mason University. said the line between being wrong and lying matters. but that market promoters have traditionally been dealing with opinions. not criminal conduct.

Hanson said. “We’ve asked these to be taken down. as they violate our affiliate marketing policies. ” describing how the system distinguishes error from deception: “We’ve asked these to be taken down. as they violate our affiliate marketing policies” was Kalshi’s position. but Hanson’s broader point was different. He said. “We’ve asked these to be taken down. as they violate our affiliate marketing policies” is what a company can do within its rules—while on the broader question of enforcement. “You have to know you’re wrong to be lying. so that’s a different standard.” He added that regulators generally do not target people simply because they hold wrong views about markets: “we don’t usually prosecute people for having opinions about stocks and other assets just for being wrong.”.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, regulates prediction markets, but Hanson said it’s unlikely the regulator would step in. “I presume there are regulations for false advertising or something, but this doesn’t sound like that,” he said.

Between affiliate marketing policies and federal enforcement, the episode lands in a gray zone that feels increasingly urgent for voters. If election misinformation travels fastest through the same channels used to sell market forecasts. the markets can end up doing something they claim not to do—turning speculation into influence. without proof.

prediction markets Kalshi Polymarket influencer marketing Los Angeles mayoral election Spencer Pratt mail-in ballots election fraud claims affiliate marketing policies CFTC