All bets are off when it comes to betting on elections. It has been mostly illegal in the United States. And as much as we have fretted about on the editorial page here that, of course, doesn’t change what happens in court.

For a brief moment earlier this month, the betting door was wide open. A court decision allowed a company called Kalshi to take bets. The betting was soon stopped by a federal appeals court. We wouldn’t place a bet on any final resolution.

Supporters say such betting would be good. Predictive markets based on betting would give insight into elections, maybe better than polling or, at least, in addition to polling. It would enable people to hedge against political outcomes. And it’s already happening overseas. If the U.S. allowed more of it, it could try to regulate it.

Opponents, including Oregon’s Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat, worry about the new role the betting money would play in elections. Will big money try to manipulate the betting markets to shape elections? If it’s possible, you know people will try.

We’d rather not unleash new tools for elections to be shaped by money but if the U.S. broadly legalized it, it could try to regulate it. It would, though, likely succeed as well as campaign finance laws succeed now.