Crypto PACs Secure Massive War Chests: A $190 Million Gamble on US Midterms

WASHINGTON, D.C. – February 2025. Political action committees representing the cryptocurrency industry have amassed unprecedented financial reserves, securing war chests exceeding $190 million as the United States approaches pivotal midterm elections. This massive influx of capital signals a profound and aggressive shift in the industry’s strategy to shape federal policy and secure a favorable regulatory landscape.

Crypto PACs Mobilize Record Funds for Election Influence

Super PACs affiliated with the digital asset sector now command financial resources that rival traditional corporate lobbying giants. Specifically, the primary industry-funded super PAC, Fairshake, reported raising approximately $133 million in 2025 alone. Consequently, its total cash on hand surged to over $190 million. Major contributions fueled this growth, including $25 million each from crypto exchange Coinbase and blockchain firm Ripple, alongside a $24 million initial investment from venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z).

This financial mobilization follows a record year in 2024, where the industry directed at least $245 million toward campaign contributions. The scale of this spending has triggered significant concern among election reform advocates. Saurav Ghosh, Director of the Campaign Legal Center, emphasized the stakes, stating this level of financial influence risks marginalizing everyday Americans in the political process.

The Strategic Shift from Lobbying to Super PAC Dominance

Industry influence operations have evolved dramatically. Just a few years ago, corporate efforts focused primarily on direct lobbying and campaign donations. Today, sector-specific super PACs with massive bank accounts dominate the strategy. Michael Beckel, Research Director at the bipartisan reform group Issue One, notes this change allows special interests to make a more substantial and visible impact in Washington, often to thwart new regulations.

The data underscores this transformation:

• Fairshake: Raised ~$260 million from 2023-2024, with $126 million in independent expenditures.
• Defend American Jobs (Conservative-aligned): Made $57 million in independent expenditures (2023-2024).
• Protect Progress (Liberal-aligned): Made $34.5 million in independent expenditures (2023-2024).

These affiliated committees, despite different political leanings, coordinate to advance a unified industry agenda.

Bipartisan Support and Partisan Risks in Crypto Politics

The industry’s central legislative goal remains the passage of a comprehensive market structure law, such as the CLARITY Act. Although the Act passed the House, it currently languishes in the Senate, caught between industry demands and Democratic oversight concerns. With Congress now shifting focus to the 2026 midterms, crypto political strategy faces a critical test of bipartisanship.

Historically, the crypto sector has found more consistent support within the Republican Party. For example, the Senate vote on the related GENIUS Act saw nearly twice as many Democrats voting against it as for it. This dynamic has prompted some industry figures to adopt a partisan stance. The Winklevoss twins, founders of Gemini, have contributed millions to the conservative Digital Freedom Fund, which supports pro-crypto and pro-Trump candidates.

However, other voices warn against aligning too closely with one party. Crypto-friendly Democratic Representative Sam Liccardo cautioned in October 2025 that putting all eggs in one party’s basket is a risky long-term strategy. Indeed, Fairshake’s spending records from 2023-2024 show it actually supported more Democrats than Republicans, indicating a pragmatic, rather than purely ideological, approach to securing allies.

The Evolution of Crypto’s Political Footprint

The current political spending surge represents the culmination of a multi-year effort to establish influence. The 2020-2021 bull market first brought massive visibility through celebrity endorsements and stadium naming rights. Simultaneously, lobbying budgets ballooned. Coinbase increased its lobbying spend from $1.5 million in 2020 to $3.9 million in 2021, while Ripple’s spending more than tripled.

The case of Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX remains a cautionary tale. Before his conviction, he injected over $100 million into the 2022 midterms, leveraging that influence to lobby for favorable regulation. The subsequent market crash and regulatory crackdown by the SEC under Chair Gary Gensler created a regulatory vacuum and a sense of urgency within the industry to formalize its legal standing through legislation.

The 2024 presidential election cycle further cemented crypto as a political issue. Donald Trump’s appearance at a Bitcoin conference and promises to end “regulation by enforcement” marked a significant milestone, directly placing digital assets on the national campaign platform.

Policy at a Crossroads: The CLARITY Act Impasse

The direct impact of this financial clout is most visible in the current legislative stalemate. Work on the key market structure bill stalled in early 2025 after Coinbase withdrew its support. The primary conflict involves a provision to ban stablecoin yields for consumers, a product Coinbase offers. Traditional banks argue the practice threatens financial stability, while the crypto industry calls the proposed ban anti-competitive.

Recent closed-door summits between crypto and banking leaders, convened by the White House, have yet to yield a compromise. Meanwhile, the enormous war chests held by groups like Fairshake exert continuous pressure on lawmakers. Reporter Sander Lutz noted that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is “desperate” to finalize a bill, a sentiment analysts link directly to the political spending power now arrayed around the issue.

Conclusion: Influence, Democracy, and an Uncertain Future

The cryptocurrency industry’s decision to secure massive war chests ahead of the US midterms represents a high-stakes gamble on the American political system. With over $190 million ready to deploy, crypto PACs are poised to become one of the most powerful financial forces in the 2026 election cycle. Their success or failure will not only determine the regulatory future of digital assets but also serve as a case study in how emerging industries seek to buy influence in modern Washington. As Rick Claypool of Public Citizen warns, this scale of spending risks feeding public cynicism, creating a perception that elected officials prioritize wealthy donors over ordinary constituents. The coming months will reveal whether this financial strategy can achieve its legislative goals or if it will provoke a broader backlash against the role of money in politics.

FAQs

Q1: What is a crypto Super PAC?
A Super PAC (Political Action Committee) is an independent political committee that can raise and spend unlimited sums of money to advocate for or against political candidates. Crypto Super PACs, like Fairshake, are funded by industry players to support candidates favorable to cryptocurrency regulation.

Q2: How much money have crypto PACs raised for the 2026 midterms?
The main crypto Super PAC, Fairshake, alone has over $190 million in cash on hand as of early 2025, after raising about $133 million this year. This is part of an industry-wide effort that spent at least $245 million on politics in 2024.

Q3: Why is the crypto industry spending so much on politics?
The primary goal is to pass favorable federal legislation, such as the CLARITY Act, which would create a clear regulatory framework for digital assets. The industry seeks to avoid what it views as punitive “regulation by enforcement” from agencies like the SEC.

Q4: Which political party does the crypto industry support?
While the industry has found more consistent support among Republicans, major PACs like Fairshake have spent significantly on both Democratic and Republican candidates, pursuing a bipartisan strategy to build a durable legislative coalition.

Q5: What are the criticisms of this level of political spending?
Election reform advocates argue that such massive financial influence undermines democracy by allowing a wealthy industry to disproportionately sway policy, marginalizing the concerns of everyday voters and increasing public cynicism toward government.