Not all voters are sold on crypto. In Illinois, the industry’s lobby spent millions but failed to deliver a primary victory.
On Tuesday, Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton won the Democratic primary for a rare open U.S. Senate seat and is widely expected to succeed retiring Senator Dick Durbin. Stratton defeated Representatives Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly. Krishnamoorthi had drawn heavy backing from crypto-aligned political action committees (PACs), but those ties appeared to hurt him with progressive voters.
Stratton ran on a progressive platform that included opposing ICE and backing a higher minimum wage. As the race tightened, PACs such as Fairshake and Protect Progress poured millions into the contest to boost Krishnamoorthi — a supporter of the GENIUS Act and a backer of the CLARITY Act and the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act. Advocacy group Stand With Crypto gave him an “A” rating for his legislative record.
Stratton highlighted the influx of crypto dollars late in the race. Local reporting estimated Fairshake spent more than $8 million. Stratton accused Krishnamoorthi of relying on “MAGA-backed crypto bros” to fund attack ads, and voters appeared receptive to that message. The industry’s association with Trump and prominent donors who have signaled support for him — including venture figures tied to Fairshake — amplified concerns.
Fairshake reports show it is technically nonpartisan but has historically spent more supporting Republican candidates. That partisan tilt drew criticism from Illinois officials. Senator Tammy Duckworth warned Krishnamoorthi could be “compromised” by industry interests, a charge the congressman denied.
Polling suggests a complex attitude among Illinois voters: while many view cryptocurrency favorably overall, substantial shares also support restrictions. A 2025 poll found 47% of Democratic voters favor policies restricting crypto and blockchain growth, and 36% of Illinois voters said they’d be more likely to back officials who support such restrictions.
Observers noted Stratton also benefited from establishment support, including donations tied to Governor J.B. Pritzker, but voters dismissed billionaire backing as routine. The larger takeaway for the crypto industry was the risk that visible ties to one political faction could undermine its influence.
The Illinois outcome is one of many contests where crypto-related money will test its effectiveness. By the end of 2025, Fairshake reported about $190 million in cash on hand, including $131 million raised in the latter half of the year. That war chest has prompted warnings from lawmakers and watchdogs that large PACs could distort democratic influence. Senator Elizabeth Warren called the primary a test of whether the industry can “buy whatever candidate they want,” and Saurav Ghosh of the Campaign Legal Center warned such spending marginalizes everyday voters in favor of a deregulatory industry agenda.
The industry’s growing linkage to MAGA and Trump presents a strategic challenge: with Trump’s approval low in many states and Republicans broadly unpopular in some electorates, an overt alignment could backfire. Political operatives say crypto must remain bipartisan to preserve influence. Democrats in Congress continue to include pro-crypto voices, and industry figures argue crypto should not be treated as a partisan issue.
“Many policymakers on both sides of the aisle support crypto,” said Filecoin Foundation chair Marta Belcher, stressing that technology policy should transcend party lines. The Illinois primary suggests, however, that visible, partisan funding and perceived alignment with controversial political figures can make crypto ties a liability in competitive races.
