To amend sections 102.01, 102.06, and 102.99 and to enact section 102.032 of the Revised Code to prohibit public officials and employees from using prediction markets.
HB 887 would add a new ethics restriction in Ohio law prohibiting public officials and employees from using prediction markets. The bill defines a “prediction market” as a system for buying, selling, or trading event contracts, and it bars covered officials and employees from maintaining an account, participating in event-contract trading, facilitating such trading, or disclosing confidential information to influence those trades. It also creates a narrower set of restrictions for certain high-level state officials and employees, including statewide elected officers, legislators and legislative staff, judicial officers and staff, specified executive-branch agencies, casino/lottery/racing regulators, the Ohio Ethics Commission, and the inspector general.
The bill further amends Ohio’s ethics enforcement provisions to include violations of the new prediction-market ban in the complaint, hearing, prosecution, and penalty framework already used for other ethics offenses. It authorizes the appropriate ethics commission to investigate alleged violations and adds a specific penalty of up to a $10,000 fine per violation, along with potential recovery of investigation and prosecution costs. The bill also requires post-enactment financial disclosure reporting of any prediction-market accounts held during the prior 12 months, and it exempts passive investments through mutual funds, blind trusts, or similar arrangements, as well as educational or research activity without personal financial gain.
HB 887 would expand Chapter 102 of the Revised Code by creating a new ethics offense tied to prediction markets and event contracts, while also updating enforcement and penalty provisions to cover that offense. It would affect public officials and employees across state and local government, with especially direct restrictions on top statewide officers, legislators, judges, and certain regulatory and ethics personnel. The bill would also require additional disclosure on ethics filings and could trigger ethics commission investigations, misdemeanor liability, fines, and cost recovery for violations.
The bill appears to be introduced as a preventive ethics measure aimed at avoiding conflicts of interest and misuse of confidential information in emerging financial markets. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes available, there is no documented debate or formal vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. On its face, the proposal is framed in a regulatory and integrity-focused manner rather than as a partisan or budgetary measure.
The main potential point of contention is the breadth of the restriction and whether public officials should be barred from participating in a relatively new financial product that may also be used for informational or research purposes. Another likely issue is the scope of the covered officials and employees, especially the additional restrictions on high-level officeholders and regulators, and whether the bill goes too far by reaching indirect financial interests and compensation from prediction-market operators. The bill tries to address some concerns by allowing passive investments through blind trusts and permitting educational or research activity without personal financial gain, but those exceptions may still leave questions about enforcement and line-drawing.