As the country barrels toward Super Tuesday, there are many ways to make money from the 2020 presidential election. If you think Sen. Bernie Sanders is going to win, you could short luxury-goods manufacturers. Or if you’re betting on Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s chances, you could plan to buy shares of Ancestry.com in the event that the DNA testing company’s long-rumored IPO finally takes place.

But if you want to take a position directly on the presidential election outcome using an online market, you can’t bet more than $850 on any single prediction. That’s because the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has set strict limits on trading. It has further kneecapped online political betting by allowing it only for “research purposes.” Existing platforms like PredictIt and Iowa Electronic Markets are run out of universities and cannot profit from the markets they create.

Political betting is a useful source of information for journalists and voters who track campaigns. And unlike pundits, election speculators have skin in the game. It’s time for the CFTC to relax its suffocating regulations on prediction markets.

Political betting has a storied history in the U.S. In October and November of presidential election years from 1896 to 1924, the prices for such bets were regularly quoted in major New York newspapers. Trading of election-related bets on the New York Curb Exchange—predecessor of the American Stock Exchange—occasionally exceeded the volume of stock and bond trading.

Political markets serve valuable purposes: They help people imagine alternative futures and make it possible to hedge political risks in a more-direct way than proxy bets allow. Coal companies could go long on Bloomberg futures to mitigate some of the losses they anticipate from his energy policies. Companies that would rely on government subsidies under a Green New Deal could do the same with Trump contracts.