This is a market on whether the US government will pass another bill that includes military funding for Ukraine in 2023. A consensus of credible reporting will be used.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ4,463 | |
| 2 | Ṁ357 | |
| 3 | Ṁ334 | |
| 4 | Ṁ318 | |
| 5 | Ṁ50 |
People are also trading
Before I resolve this, anyone want to make an argument the other way?
Evan -- does the NDAA require an additional bill in order to disperse funds? There is some chatter that it maybe shouldn't count. Obviously, the spirit of this market was intended to be the main Ukraine bill. However, if Ukraine funding is in the bill, then it should be a yes even if it's small.
@DouglasCampbell I'm not aware of any additional legislation required for that, but I'm not a legislative expert.
@EvanDaniel Here was the debate on the Polymarket market on this topic. The TL/DR was that the NDAA was not an appropriations bill. I still need to research properly.
P4 Too Early.
Neither the rule, nor the spirit of the market have been satisfied. No aid was granted to Ukraine by the NDAA, and this question was about Biden's Ukraine Supplemental Assistance Request as it, as an act appropriating money, is A BILL GRANTING AID TO UKRAINE. The illusory $300m is .004% a tiny fraction of the $68Billiion Supplement. Yes is trying to contort a tiny meaningless nothing everyone already knew was getting passed beforehand into actual aid for Ukraine through misleading headlines. It is still an ongoing news story that Congress has not approved any new aid to Ukraine since 2022. (See Punchbowl Tweet)
The Rule
The answer is in the Constitution: Ar. I, S. 9, Cl. 7: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." You can take Marjorie Taylor Greene's word for it or the Constitution.
Aid cannot be granted to Ukraine without an appropriations bill, which 1) provides actual $; and 2) gives agencies the authority to spend or obligate (ie, incur a legal obligation=sign a contract).
Despite the misleading headlines, the bill actually gives $0.00 to anyone and contains $0.00. The "$300m" in the NDAA is just a placeholder suggestion to the Appropriations Committee, it is meaningless as it:
-Provides $0.00 present dollars to or for Ukraine. (news stories still abound about aid running out)
-Guarantees $0.00 for Ukraine - Congress doesn't have to appropriate anything. (See CRS Report)
-Wasn't even a necessary pre-requisite to aid: a) Congress can appropriate without an authorization (See CRS Report). b) Congress voted for the '24 Supplement on 12.6, before even voting on the '24 NDAA purportedly authorizing the granting of aid. (See tweet) https://imgur.com/vmL6OMn
Spirit of the Market
This question was actually meant to address Biden's Ukraine Supplemental Assistance request.
"More"=Supplemental -- "Aid"=Assistance -- "Approved"=A Request gets "approved".
That's what's been in the news before, during, and after the day the question launched with Zelensky at the WH discussing supplemental aid for Ukraine. There was no discussion of the NDAA, because it contains no money, makes no money available, and does not guarantee Ukraine a single dollar.
The NDAA was 100% likely to pass, yet this market was as low as 7% and Metaculus was around 0% when it was incorrectly resolved to Yes. Some people read some news reports they did not understand and got fooled into thinking the NDAA actually makes something available to be granted to Ukraine. The "Authorization" in the NDAA is a non-binding message to Congress that it can later, if it so chooses, appropriate money for Ukraine. No more aid can be granted to Ukraine without an Appropriations Bill. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the Constitution.
https://vxtwitter.com/potus/status/1735107316632912131?s=46&t=zaxtGsYSy_eSevwrJvsV2A
https://vxtwitter.com/PunchbowlNews/status/1737442725312729171?s=20 (edited)
My research suggesting it's a no.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10515
"Unlike an appropriations bill, the NDAA does not provide budget authority for government activities."
But, if someone makes an argument for yes, I'm willing to listen.
@DouglasCampbell cant see any arguement for YES that doesn't come down to cope, im glad I was able to sell my YES shares in time
@DouglasCampbell Your market is "spend." That leans more into appropriations.
The UMA scam was they overturned "approve" which is what the NDAA did.
@Domer That long wall of text is not entirely accurate. The Ukraine section of the bill includes the ability for the US to send weapons to Ukraine, regardless of appropriations. They don't utilize that, because they use a different authority for that and instead utilize the section in NDAA to provide new technology to Ukraine (typically passed in the defense appropriations bill).
But again, your market is "spend" which would seem to not count the ability to transfer up to $300m in weapons.
Incidentally, that UMA scam was perpetrated in part by your dutiful employee, aenews. Those clowns run roughshod over UMA.
Tl;dr -- No seems fine for your expiration, it makes sense. The Polymarket should've expired Yes, but it was a lower bar than your market.
NDAA includes funding, as mentioned below.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/ndaa-defense-bill-what-is/index.html
The defense authorization bill would extend the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative through the end of 2026 and authorize $300 million for the program in the current fiscal year and the next one. The program provides funding for the federal government to pay industry to produce weapons and security assistance to send to Ukraine, rather than drawing directly from current US stockpiles of weapons.
@EvanDaniel Yeah I agree "the US government [passed] another bill that includes military funding for Ukraine in 2023."
@EvanDaniel This CRS document says the NDAA is not even an appropriations bill. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10515
"Unlike an appropriations bill, the NDAA does not provide budget authority for government activities."