Roughly $176 million has been directed at more than 100 congressional races, and the 2026 midterms have not yet arrived. According to a Reuters review of campaign-finance data, U.S. crypto companies and advocacy groups are building congressional support designed to survive any future shift in presidential politics.
The central vehicle is Fairshake, a crypto-focused super PAC backed by Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreessen Horowitz. Fairshake and its affiliated PACs accounted for approximately $150.8 million of the total through October 20, with other crypto groups contributing around $25 million.
This is not a new playbook. Fairshake spent approximately $196 million during the 2024 election cycle, making the current effort a continuation of an established strategy rather than a response to a single political moment.
Public Citizen reported in June that crypto companies had contributed $189 million of the $294 million in total corporate political spending it tracked across tech-adjacent industries. Those figures use a different methodology and timeframe from Reuters’ $176 million midterm total, so they are not directly comparable. Both data sets, however, point to the same conclusion: crypto ranks among the largest sources of corporate political money in the tracked categories.
A Strong Primary Record, With Caveats
Fairshake claims a 91 percent win rate in primaries and special elections, though the figures are self-reported and do not establish the PAC as the cause of those outcomes.
Fairshake said 53 of the 58 candidates it supported in primaries or special elections won their races and are scheduled to appear on the November 3 general-election ballot. That figure is the group’s own accounting and does not establish that its spending caused those victories.
Legislation Won, Legislation Stalled
The industry has one major legislative win to point to, but its next priority remains stuck in the Senate.
Among the industry’s concrete wins is the GENIUS Act, which established federal rules for stablecoins. The law requires issuers to fully back tokens with liquid assets, including U.S. dollars or short-term Treasury bills, and to publish monthly reserve disclosures.
Progress on the CLARITY Act has proven harder. The bill would give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission a larger supervisory role over cryptocurrency markets, but Senate Democrats blocked it from advancing to a final vote.
Fairshake reportedly responded by shifting its Senate candidate support exclusively toward Republicans. The pivot illustrates a tension within the industry’s stated bipartisan strategy.
“We back pro-crypto candidates who support American innovation in both parties, and look forward to continuing to build on the largest pro-crypto caucus in American history.” Geoff Vetter, Fairshake spokesperson.
The Trump Complication
Ethics demands tied to the Trump family’s crypto holdings have added a conflict-of-interest dimension to an already complicated legislative negotiation.
Senate Democrats have pushed for an ethics provision that would require the Trump family to divest its crypto holdings before market-structure legislation advances. That demand has entangled regulatory negotiations with conflict-of-interest concerns, complicating progress on the CLARITY Act.
The regulatory backdrop helps explain the industry’s urgency. During President Joe Biden’s administration, the SEC imposed more than $6 billion in penalties across 98 cryptocurrency-related enforcement actions, according to Reuters. Much of that enforcement followed the 2022 collapse of FTX.
What November Does Not Settle
Electoral victories and legislative victories are separate challenges, and the stalled CLARITY Act illustrates the difference.
If Democrats recapture the House in November, the regulatory pressure that defined the Biden years could return regardless of how many Fairshake-backed candidates win. The stalled CLARITY Act illustrates that electoral influence does not automatically resolve disputes over regulatory jurisdiction or ethics requirements. The real test is whether supported lawmakers can produce durable market-structure law before the political environment shifts again.
