Maybe. One usually can't structure around criminal law. If they managed to, somehow, the Congress needs to investigate to amend the law to ensure you can't structure around obvious bribery.

Either way, a criminal investigation by the states is warranted.

I don't see how that applies in this context which is pretty simple. The transaction with Don Jr. was a board advisory role in exchange for equity. Broadly, bribery is "paying to influence the actions or decisions of a public official." Don Jr. isn't an official. He signed a contract to provide board advisory services. The contract wouldn't say anything about anything else. I've been a board advisor and signed a similar contract (if not the same one, they're quite pro forma).

Absent a secret recording establishing payment for influence, there's nothing to prove bribery. Do I think making him an advisor was done in the hope it would influence his father to promote and sign favorable legislation? Absolutely. Do I think there's any chance evidence exists to prosecute that? No.

Nadine Menendez wasn't an official. She still went to jail for corruption [1].

> Absent a secret recording establishing payment for influence, there's nothing to prove bribery

Or a text. Or demonstration of policy moves by the Trump administration that benefited Kalshi.

Even if the criminal investigation doesn't yield proof beyond reasonable doubt, it could then be turned into a civil case against Kalshi's officers and Don Jr.

> Democrat controlled congressional committee

Sure. It should also be pursued by state AGs. Trump can't pardon a state conviction.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/nadine-menendez-sentenc...