Political action committees and super PACs aligned with the cryptocurrency industry have amassed huge war chests as the U.S. approaches its 2026 midterm elections, prompting alarm from reform advocates who say the cash distorts democratic decision-making.
Industry spending surged in the 2024 cycle, with crypto-linked groups and companies contributing at least $245 million in campaign-related spending. Leading the push is Fairshake, the primary super PAC funded by cryptocurrency interests. Fairshake raised about $133 million in 2025, bringing its cash on hand to more than $190 million. Across recent cycles, the group has reported even larger sums — a separate filing shows Fairshake raised roughly $260 million from 2023 to 2024. Major donors include venture capital firm a16z ($24 million) and $25 million gifts from both Coinbase and Ripple.
That influx of money has shifted how the industry exerts influence. Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One, says corporate influence operations have moved from lobbying and direct donations toward sector-specific super PACs with massive accounts, and that these vehicles have “made a huge splash and helped thwart new regulations on their business interests.”
Bipartisan strategy and partisan risk
The industry’s prime legislative aim is a comprehensive framework often referred to as the CLARITY Act, which passed the House and moved to the Senate but remains unsettled. The bill has failed to reconcile differing demands: regulators’ oversight and ethics concerns raised by Senate Democrats, and the crypto industry’s frustration — notably Coinbase’s — with provisions they see as restrictive.
Crypto firms and funders are split over partisanship. Some, like Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss of Gemini, have poured money into conservative groups such as the Digital Freedom Fund to back pro-crypto, pro-Trump candidates. Others warn that overt alignment with one party risks backlash when power shifts. Representative Sam Liccardo, a crypto-friendly Democrat, told Politico in October 2025 that industries should avoid putting “eggs in one party’s basket.”
Fairshake has shown a willingness to support Democrats perceived as pro-crypto; OpenSecrets data indicate it spent more supporting Democrats than Republicans in the 2023–2024 period. Related single-issue PACs tied to the sector include Defend American Jobs (conservative) and Protect Progress (liberal), which — despite ideological labels — are affiliated with Fairshake according to Follow the Crypto. Defend American Jobs made about $57 million in independent expenditures and Protect Progress about $34.5 million in the 2023–2024 period.
A decade of rising influence
Crypto’s political muscle traces back years. During the 2020–2021 bull run, crypto platforms increased ad spending and visibility: celebrity endorsements and major sponsorships became common. At the same time, lobbying budgets rose. Coinbase increased lobbying spend from $1.5 million in 2020 to $3.9 million in 2021; Ripple’s lobbying rose from $330,000 in 2020 to more than $1.1 million in 2021.
Individual donors have also been consequential. Sam Bankman-Fried contributed more than $100 million in the 2022 midterms, donations prosecutors later said were funded with misused customer funds. Prosecutors asserted he used that influence to press for favorable legislation and regulatory treatment. Bankman-Fried himself acknowledged supporting campaigns on both sides of the aisle, though he found Republicans “far more reasonable” on crypto policy.
The crypto market’s collapse in 2022 and subsequent enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission did not end political activity. Instead, the industry doubled down: super PACs and single-issue groups became a primary avenue for influence, making large independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates or parties, per FEC rules.
Policy fights and the CLARITY Act impasse
A key flashpoint in legislative negotiations is a provision that would ban consumer-facing stablecoin yield products — a practice some exchanges offer that lets customers earn yields on stablecoin holdings. Banks argue such products threaten financial stability by encouraging deposit flight from insured institutions; crypto firms say banning them would stifle innovation and reduce competition. Coinbase ultimately withdrew support for the market-structure bill in mid-January, citing such unresolved issues.
The White House convened a closed-door summit between crypto and banking leaders to bridge differences, but Reuters reported no agreement emerged. Senate leaders have nonetheless signaled urgency: reporters note Senate Democrats view discussions as “constructive,” while other accounts say top lawmakers are desperate to finalize a bill, even as Fairshake and other groups continue to amass funds — Fairshake’s reported coffers reached roughly $193 million in one account.
Critics: influence buying and democratic risk
Election reform and consumer advocacy groups warn that big-money influence sidelines ordinary voters. Saurav Ghosh, director at the Campaign Legal Center, says the industry’s spending “ultimately undermines the democratic process by marginalizing everyday Americans, ensuring that their voices and interests take a backseat to the crypto industry’s deregulatory desires.” Rick Claypool of Public Citizen argues that such spending breeds cynicism and erodes trust in institutions by prioritizing wealthy donors’ interests over most constituents.
Beckel observed that super PACs aligned with specific industries have become fashionable for those seeking clear political visibility in Washington, and that these concentrated resources can blunt regulatory efforts that would otherwise curb risky or abusive business practices.
A fraught electoral moment
The increase in crypto’s political spending coincides with heightened concern about election integrity and rhetoric from top political figures. Former President Trump has suggested Republicans should “nationalize” midterm voting and take more control over election administration in certain jurisdictions. Election experts have refuted widespread fraud claims, and some Republican leaders, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, acknowledged lacking evidence for broad fraud assertions.
Legal and democracy experts warn that the convergence of concentrated private political spending and election-related threats creates a precarious situation: industry actors pour money into shaping policy just as the mechanics and legitimacy of elections come under strain.
What’s next
As campaigns heat up for 2026’s midterms, crypto-aligned PACs and super PACs are positioned to spend heavily to influence both policy and candidates’ fortunes. Whether that money translates into durable legislation favorable to the industry — or provokes greater pushback and reform efforts — will depend on political outcomes, bipartisan negotiation, and public response to concerns about money in politics and electoral integrity.
