FirstAlerts

Kalshi Bans George Santos for Life Over State of the Union Bets

The prediction market fined the former congressman and penalized others for betting on their own races, but the matter remains undecided.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 31, 2026, 2:53 p.m. ETWritten Aug 31, 2026, 3:01 p.m. ET
, a prediction market platform, has banned former Republican Rep. George Santos for life and penalized other political figures for betting on their own races, according to a report from TechCrunch. The matter is at the charging stage and has not been resolved. The company's compliance department said it "established reasonable cause" to believe that Santos had placed bets connected to his own attendance at the event, TechCrunch reported. fined Santos $71,356, and Santos agreed to pay an additional $35,000, according to the report. These allegations have not been adjudicated. Other respondents in the proceeding include Ben Midgely, a Republican primary candidate for Maine's gubernatorial race; Laurie Buckhout, a Republican congressional nominee; and Stephen Cloobeck, a former California gubernatorial candidate, TechCrunch reported. The proceeding has been , according to the report, and remains undecided.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 131 Aug 2026, 19:01current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble β€” all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources β€” accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements β€” and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld β€” a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them β€” and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.