Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prediction Markets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hearing hears experts say existing ethics laws largely cover prediction‑market risks
Summary
Council testimony on Intro 951 debated whether New York City needs a new prohibition on officials and relatives trading on prediction markets. The Conflicts of Interest Board said existing charter provisions largely cover misuse of confidential information; watchdogs urged targeted changes to avoid duplication and to protect enforcement clarity.
Council Member Thomas Henry urged the committee to bar public officials and their immediate family from profiting on prediction markets when they act on non-public government information, calling the bill “about fairness, transparency and protecting the integrity of public service.”
Ethan Carrier, general counsel for the City’s Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB), told the committee the city charter already forbids disclosure or use of confidential city information and prohibits using a public office to obtain private gain. Carrier said those existing provisions would encompass most conduct the bill targets and cautioned that the proposed annual‑reporting expansion would impose a “dramatic” new burden on many filers beyond substantial policy makers. Carolyn Miller of COIB added that requiring reporting of event‑contract transactions of $50 or more would be unprecedented in the city’s disclosure regime.
Good‑government witnesses at the hearing echoed COIB’s recommendations. Ben Weinberg of Citizens Union and Alex Camarda of Reinvent Albany supported the bill’s intent — preventing insider profit tied to government actions — but urged the Council to align any change with Chapter 68 of the charter rather than creating a parallel enforcement regime. Reinvent Albany and Citizens Union also recommended removing or carefully circumscribing provisions that would impose enforcement against relatives or widen reporting obligations to people who are not policy makers.
During questioning, COIB officials said their enforcement powers and the confidentiality and misuse‑of‑position restrictions already provide substantial coverage. They also raised concerns about the bill’s novel elements — notably a proposed removal power for COIB and the expansion of annual disclosure to include frequent, small transactions — and the practical and legal complexities of bringing relatives under administrative enforcement.
No formal vote was taken at the hearing. Committee members and witnesses left clear points of contention: whether the city’s existing Chapter 68 should be amended to name prediction markets explicitly, or whether a new local regime is necessary; and how far a disclosure regime should reach without overburdening ordinary filers or duplicating current protections.
The committee concluded the testimony portion of the hearing without recorded action on Intro 951. The bill and related amendments remain under consideration.
