George Santos Claims Kalshi Told Paid Influencers to Conceal Political Promotions

The former congressman alleges undisclosed sponsorships, while Mark Moran claims refusing a public statement turned an $800 proposed penalty into more than $6,200.

George Santos says he has seen text messages showing Kalshi staff telling paid political influencers not to disclose their sponsorships. The former congressman, who has his own score to settle with the prediction market operator after being permanently banned from the exchange, claims the company wanted promotional posts to look like ordinary social media commentary.

Speaking on the New Normal podcast alongside former Virginia Democratic Senate candidate Mark Moran, Santos alleged that Kalshi’s political marketing operation deliberately avoided sponsorship disclosures on social media.

He contrasted the company’s alleged practices with those of rival Polymarket, which he claimed requires paid partners to disclose their arrangements. Santos served as a paid Polymarket promoter, but the company severed ties with him after he was found to have traded on his own attendance at the State of the Union address at Kalshi.

“I have seen text messages from the guys who control the political operation for influencers for Kalshi deliberately say, ‘Do not disclose it’s a paid partnership. Just post it as if it’s organic’ while they’re paying,” Santos told Indian Gaming Association Conference Chair Victor Rocha and Executive Director Jason Giles.

“I have literally seen those text messages,” he added, claiming such posts were particularly prevalent on X. Santos did not identify the individuals involved or produce the messages during the interview.

Santos believes the alleged arrangements warrant scrutiny from both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Election Commission (FEC), particularly so close to the midterms. Whether any laws were broken is another matter, and would depend on who paid whom, what was posted, and whether the content amounted to political advertising.

“You can dress, you can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still going to be a pig. It’s not going to be Marilyn Monroe.” – George Santos, Former Congressman

Gambling Insider contacted Kalshi for comment on Santos’s allegations, including the claims about undisclosed influencer payments, as well as Moran’s account of the company’s disciplinary procedures. Kalshi did not respond by the time of publication, and Gambling Insider has not independently verified the alleged messages.

In June, Politico reported that Matthew Modabber, Polymarket Chief Marketing Officer, sent at least $350,000 to content creators between January 2025 and February 2026.

About two dozen creators promoted Polymarket on X after taking payments from Modabber, posting at least 490 times without disclosing a paid partnership. His employment at the company was terminated last week.

Moran Claims His Penalty Increased After He Refused to Make a Public Statement

Moran has a different complaint about Kalshi, one that began with a $100 wager on himself. He says the exchange initially offered him a one-year suspension and an $800 fine, only to raise the proposed penalties to a five-year ban and a fine of approximately $6,200 after he refused to make a public statement.

Moran traced the dispute to November 2025, when he asked Kalshi’s political markets team to add his name to a market about prospective candidates. He says they obliged within a day, leaving him free to buy $100 in contracts on his own political future.

“I had to register with my own driver’s license, put my name to this, yet I was allowed to then bet. Why is this happening?” – Mark Moran, Former Virginia Democratic Senate candidate

“They added me immediately. The next day I’m live there. So I put $100 on myself to see what would happen,” Moran said.

What bothers Moran is that Kalshi already knew who he was. He had signed up using his driver’s license, yet the platform still let him trade on an event directly involving himself.

Moran said he had no objection to the original fine or suspension, but drew the line at what he described as a demand to publicly acknowledge Kalshi’s enforcement action. He viewed that requirement as an attempt to dictate what he could say about the case.

“I agree to a one-year ban, to an $800 fine, sure, but how dare you try to compel my own speech,” he said, recounting his response to the proposal.

The proposed penalties then climbed, according to Moran, from a fine of $800 to $6,200 and a suspension of one year to five. “So now we’re at 62 times what my initial bet was,” he said.

Kalshi’s published disciplinary findings confirm the final outcome: a five-year suspension and a $6,229.30 penalty. They do not confirm Moran’s version of the negotiations, with the exchange stating that he admitted breaching its rules but failed to reach a settlement.

Moran has challenged the company’s handling of his case through litigation, accusing it of acting in bad faith. His account of the requested public statement has not been independently corroborated.

Moran Claims Kalshi Turned Its Disciplinary Cases Into Paid Promotion

Moran also alleges Kalshi paid influencers to circulate clips about its disciplinary actions, including his own case. In his telling, the company was not simply publicizing its enforcement record, but paying to get that message in front of more people.

“So I started to see how, just like George, I was being used for publicity.” – Mark Moran, Former Virginia Democratic Senate candidate

He put the alleged rate at $8 per 1,000 impressions, although he provided no contracts or payment records during the interview. Nor did he identify the influencers supposedly receiving the money.

Moran argues that Kalshi was happy to publicize violations it could potentially have prevented through its own systems. That criticism has limits, however, because verifying a customer’s identity does not necessarily tell an exchange whether a particular trade breaks its rules.

Santos Is Willing to Back Letitia James Against Kalshi

Santos has found an unlikely ally in New York Attorney General Letitia James, despite making no secret of his dislike for her. He said his attorneys had offered to submit an amicus brief supporting her legal efforts against Kalshi.

“I couldn’t be a bigger supporter of the initiatives, of somebody who I’m not a fan of, like Letitia James, the New York State Attorney General,” Santos said. His support for the litigation, he made clear, does not extend to James herself.

New York’s gaming regulator has sought court intervention to compel Kalshi to comply with investigative subpoenas concerning sports-event contracts, advertising, products offered to younger customers and its corporate structure. The dispute forms part of a confrontation over whether prediction market sports contracts fall under federal commodities regulation or state gambling laws.

Santos also called on traditional gaming operators and tribal gaming interests to coordinate their opposition to prediction market sports contracts. He argued that Kalshi’s products should face gambling regulation rather than being treated exclusively as federally regulated financial instruments.

“It’s gambling. It’s gambling. Goddamn it. I’m a professional blackjack player. It’s gambling,” Santos declared.

Kalshi maintains that its event contracts fall under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s jurisdiction, while state regulators argue that sports-event contracts constitute wagering subject to state gambling laws. Santos dismissed the industry’s distinction between sportsbook parlays and prediction market combinations, arguing that different terminology does not change the activity.

Santos Still Disputes the Trading Violations That Got Him Banned

Santos’s own trouble with Kalshi began with contracts on whether he would attend President Donald Trump’s February 24 State of the Union address. In July, the CFTC ordered him to surrender $17,569.98 in trading profits and pay another $17,500 in civil penalties.

“Ultimately, these statements did in fact manipulate the price of said contracts. Furthermore, The Department found that Santos materially benefited from his trading activity, profiting $17,839.57 in the Target Markets.” – Kalshi

The regulator found that Santos had made misleading public statements while trading contracts tied to his attendance. Those statements affected prices, according to the CFTC, while Santos bought and sold positions using information about his travel plans.

Santos settled without admitting or denying the regulator’s findings and agreed to a three-year ban from CFTC-regulated markets. Kalshi subsequently imposed a permanent suspension and a separate $71,356 penalty after concluding that he had manipulated the market.

Santos disputes Kalshi’s account of the case and says the exchange has misrepresented what his CFTC settlement means. He also alleges that Kalshi repeatedly changed its rules after his trades, although he did not identify any relevant amendments.

He believes Kalshi saw an opportunity to make an example of him and generate favorable publicity in the process.

Both Men Fear Large Bets Could Shape How Voters See Elections

The conversation also turned to what happens when political betting odds start looking like election forecasts. Santos and Moran worry that traders with sufficient capital could move market prices and, in turn, influence how voters judge a candidate’s chances.

Moran pointed to a $700,000 position in a Texas political market, suggesting a single large trader could have an outsized effect on the displayed odds. He did not provide transaction records to identify the trader or evidence that the position had changed anyone’s voting intentions.

He wants the CFTC to treat markets controlled by one person’s decisions differently from those determined by millions of voters. Someone betting on their own attendance or candidacy, he argues, has access to information ordinary traders cannot reasonably obtain.

Santos took the argument further, warning that overseas traders might use large positions to influence perceptions of American elections. He called for restrictions on foreign participation, although the interview offered no evidence of coordinated foreign interference in the markets discussed.

The two men are not proposing quite the same remedy. Moran wants restrictions on contracts involving individually controlled outcomes, while Santos favors a much broader crackdown on prediction market operators.

Kalshi’s Disciplinary Targets Have Become Some of Its Loudest Critics

There is a certain irony in Santos and Moran presenting themselves as champions of market integrity after being disciplined for betting on events involving themselves. Moran says he deliberately tested Kalshi’s safeguards, while Santos continues to dispute the findings that led to his federal penalties and permanent exchange ban.

Neither man’s disciplinary record settles the questions they have raised about Kalshi’s marketing practices. But Santos has yet to produce the messages he claims to have seen, and Moran’s description of the settlement negotiations remains contested.

Santos appears ready to turn his dispute with Kalshi into a longer-running political campaign, even offering his services to the podcast hosts in Washington. “If you guys need an asset in Washington, D.C., call me,” he said.

Kalshi has already barred Santos from trading on its platform, but keeping him out of the political argument may prove considerably harder.

The post George Santos Claims Kalshi Told Paid Influencers to Conceal Political Promotions appeared first on Gambling Insider.