TL;DR: Crypto PACs are pouring millions into United States midterm races, with Fairshake targeting Democrats who opposed the CLARITY Act. At the same time, industry claims about a powerful “crypto voter” face conflicting survey data, while questions over Trump’s crypto interests and potential conflicts continue.
Key Takeaways:
Crypto campaign financiers are showing Democrats no mercy in the United States midterm election fight, while Donald Trump just can’t stop pushing his ‘ethics’ boundaries.
On Tuesday (22), the crypto-focused Fairshake political action committee (PAC) made good on its threat to go medieval on Sherrod Brown, the Democratic ex-senator looking to dethrone Ohio Republican Jon Husted in November’s midterm elections. Fairshake has pledged to spend $30 million to keep Brown from returning to the Senate after spending $40 million to ensure Brown’s 2024 defeat vs. Bernie Moreno.
As always, Fairshake’s anti-Brown ads don’t mention crypto, instead attacking Brown’s “failed liberal legacy” and his alleged offering of Social Security benefits to “illegals,” while pro-Husted ads praise the Republican’s focus on “affordability” issues.
That $30 million outlay represents around one-quarter of the total sum that Fairshake and its partisan offshoots (pro-GOP Defend American Jobs and pro-Dem Protect Progress) have earmarked for the midterms. The Ohio allocation reflects how badly the crypto sector wants to prevent Brown (a notorious crypto critic) from returning to Capitol Hill.
It also reflects the GOP’s sagging fortunes in the current political climate. RealClearPolling’s average over the past month has Brown nearly five points ahead of Husted, a view echoed by other polls conducted in advance of Fairshake’s campaign. Major prediction markets are showing Brown’s odds of prevailing in November at ~60%.
Senate Dems’ reaction to Fairshake’s latest anti-Brown campaign was mixed. Punchbowl News quoted Cory Booker (D-NJ) calling it “a very partisan take” that belied the industry’s bipartisan claims. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) said Dems did their best to push the Senate’s digital asset market structure bill (the CLARITY Act) over the finish line, but “it’s the Republicans who died on the hill of Trump corruption.” Warnock was referencing GOP senators refusing to seriously address the ‘ethics’ issue surrounding President Trump’s billion-plus crypto profiteering.
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took a different tack, saying Fairshake’s spending would actually benefit Brown, similar to other 2026 primary races where winning candidates highlighted their opponents’ crypto industry support. “People across this country are sick of a handful of billionaires who think they can buy every election. The 2026 midterms will put that issue squarely on the table.”
Fairshake and its allies have made no secret of their desire to punish Dems for voting as a bloc against CLARITY’s passage last week. While a few GOP senators also voted against CLARITY, and more appeared willing to do so ahead of the vote, crypto PACs seem determined to make Dems wear the scarlet letter of CLARITY’s defeat.
That could prove a dangerous strategy if crypto operators still hold out hope of CLARITY rising from the ashes during the post-midterms ‘lame duck’ session of Congress. On Thursday, Politico quoted a Senate Dem aide who said a full-scale crypto assault on the party “would absolutely eviscerate any hope” of a lame-duck CLARITY push.
Nationwide, the electoral picture is pretty grim for Republicans, as voters appear to have buyers’ remorse after giving the party control of the White House and both legislative chambers in 2024. Should the Dems retake the Senate despite the crypto sector’s best efforts, the Dems will likely hold a grudge. And if the Dems don’t win the Senate and crypto is seen as the reason why, Dems will have zero incentive to help CLARITY advance in the lame duck.
Those blowback risks aren’t likely to dissuade Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the brothers behind the Gemini (NASDAQ: GEMI) digital asset platform. Following CLARITY’s defeat, both Cameron and Tyler tweeted venom at Democrats, in case anyone wasn’t already aware of their affiliations.
A year ago, the Winklevii proudly launched a new PAC called the Digital Freedom Fund (DFF), seeded with $21 million of the brothers’ cash to help Trump make war on Dems. But DFF appears to be moribund, and the Winklevii have instead poured millions of dollars into Trump’s MAGA Inc PAC. After a combined $10 million donation to MAGA in June, the Winklevii gave another $10 million in August.
Foris Dax, parent company of the Crypto.com exchange (and occasional Trump corporate partner), has been even more generous, giving $35 million to MAGA Inc. Meanwhile, the Foris Dax-funded Wisconsin Working PAC is running ads targeting Mitchell Berman, a Democratic challenger to the extremely pro-crypto House Republican incumbent Bryan Steil.
As always, the crypto-sponsored ad doesn’t mention crypto, instead accusing Berman of being a “woke radical activist” who’s “pushing an extreme agenda,” including (gasp!) “government-run healthcare.”
Lies, damned lies and crypto surveys
The lack of crypto mentions in crypto PAC ads pokes holes in the sector’s preferred narrative of the ‘crypto voter,’ aka a U.S. adult who primarily bases their electoral choices on a candidate’s blockchain stance. Industry-sponsored surveys have tried to claim that 40% of voters see crypto as a “major election issue,” but less-conflicted polls show that number closer to 4%.
And when you consider the general partisan nature of America’s politics, at least half of that 4% is likely voting Republican anyway. And of the remaining 2%, crypto may not be so dominant an issue to convince a D to vote R, given the far more significant challenges currently facing America.
Reality notwithstanding, this week saw Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) CEO Brian Armstrong press home the message of “the importance of the crypto voter,” while the exchange’s chief policy officer, Faryar Shirzad, claimed crypto represented “a major grassroots voting constituency.”
Shirzad went on to spread another dubious talking point that “nearly 70 million Americans own crypto.” That’s up an impressive three million since August, when Armstrong claimed 67 million Americans own crypto.
As Armstong was making that claim, the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland issued a report showing around 12% of Americans (42 million) owned some form of crypto (including passive/indirect investments). That’s on par with other independent surveys showing similar stats.
This week, a new Gallup poll conducted in June claimed 11% of Americans owned crypto, down from 17% in 2025. The number of self-identified Republicans owning crypto this year was 12% versus 9% for Dems. But that GOP ownership stat fell seven points from 19% in 2025, while the Dems were down a more modest four points year-on-year. Independents also fell seven points to 12%.
In April, Gallup reported that only 2% of U.S. adults believe crypto is the best long-term investment, half the number from 2025 and marking the lowest score since Gallup began including crypto in this question.
Meanwhile, 66% of respondents in Gallup’s 2026 survey said they have no interest in ever buying crypto, up sharply from 57% in 2025. So, despite the industry’s claims, it seems ‘crypto voters’ are primarily voting with their feet.
Nothing ethical to see here
Speaking Wednesday at the Financial Markets Quality conference at Georgetown University, White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt was asked about CLARITY’s demise. Witt expressed frustration with Dems, accusing them of making Trump’s crypto profiteering “a political issue.”
But even some GOP senators had expressed unease at the sheer magnitude of the profits Trump was earning from his various crypto ventures, while simultaneously pressuring both Congress and federal agencies to loosen regulatory guardrails that could make those profits even fatter.
And post-CLARITY, Trump shows no signs of letting up on this front. On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that the White House is mulling “an initiative to promote the use of dollar-denominated stablecoins overseas.” The stated intent of this initiative is to support the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and boost demand for U.S. Treasuries.
Trump’s administration has repeatedly celebrated dollar-backed stablecoins for boosting T-bill sales, as U.S. law now requires stablecoin issuers like Circle (NASDAQ: CRCL) and Tether, issuers of the dominant USDC and USDT stablecoins, respectively, to back their tokens with reliable reserve assets like cash and T-bills.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has predicted that the total market cap of dollar-backed stablecoins could rise from its present $300 billion to $3.7 trillion by 2030, driving a corresponding rise in T-bill purchases. So the motivation behind this desire to boost international stablecoin demand appears obvious.
But Trump’s self-interest appears equally obvious. Bloomberg reported that the administration is considering creating stablecoin-promoting joint ventures with private sector operators via the U.S. International Development Finance Corp (DFC). DFC is currently run by the Trump-appointed Ben Black, son of Leon Black of Apollo Global Management (NASDAQ: APO) fame, and a longtime Trump friend/ally.
Trump still owns a significant chunk of World Liberty Financial (WLF), which launched its own stablecoin (USD1) last year. It probably matters not that WLF is a U.S.-based entity, and the DFC is focused on international investment, as WLF sold 49% of itself to a fund controlled by a UAE government official in January 2025.
That same UAE official later oversaw a $2 billion deal to take a stake in the Binance exchange, and for unexplained reasons chose to pay Binance not in dollars but in USD1. The deal gave a significant boost to USD1’s market cap, which currently stands at $4.4 billion, sixth-largest among dollar-backed stablecoins.
Should USD1 end up playing a prominent role in the administration’s new private-public stablecoin partnerships, you can expect the calls for stronger ‘ethics’ rules for elected officials to grow even louder. And for Republicans to do absolutely nothing about it.
FAQs:
How much is Fairshake spending against Sherrod Brown?
Fairshake has pledged to spend $30 million to prevent former Democratic senator Sherrod Brown from returning to the Senate in Ohio. The PAC previously spent $40 million in an unsuccessful effort to keep Brown from winning his 2024 race against Republican Bernie Moreno.
Why are crypto PACs targeting Democrats in the 2026 midterms?
Fairshake and its partisan affiliates are targeting Democrats in response to their opposition to the CLARITY Act, a digital asset market structure bill that failed to advance in the Senate. The article says the PACs want Democrats to bear responsibility for the bill’s defeat.
How common are crypto voters in the U.S.?
Estimates of U.S. crypto ownership vary. Industry figures have claimed that nearly 70 million Americans own crypto and that crypto represents a major voting constituency. A Cleveland Federal Reserve report, however, put the number at about 42 million, while a 2026 Gallup poll found that 11% of Americans owned crypto. Gallup also found that 66% had no interest in ever buying crypto.
How much money are crypto companies and executives putting into Republican political campaigns?
Crypto companies and executives have directed millions of dollars toward Republican political efforts. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss have given a combined $20 million to MAGA Inc., while Foris Dax, the parent company of Crypto.com, has contributed $35 million. Fairshake and its affiliated PACs have also earmarked substantial sums for the 2026 midterm elections.
Why are Trump’s crypto interests raising ethics concerns?
Trump continues to hold a significant stake in World Liberty Financial, which operates the USD1 stablecoin, while his administration is considering ways to promote dollar-backed stablecoins overseas. World Liberty Financial also sold a 49% stake to a fund controlled by a UAE government official who later oversaw a $2 billion investment in Binance that was paid in USD1. These connections have prompted further questions about potential conflicts of interest and call for stronger ethics rules.
Watch | Unlocking crypto futures: Key takeaways from Blockchain Futurist 2025
Be the first to comment