# Crypto Has Spent $176 Million on the Midterms. What Does It Want?

> The industry is funding congressional allies as it pushes for clearer rules. Turning election spending into lasting policy is a harder task.

By Sasha Steenkamp · October 27, 2026

Canonical: https://blockster.com/crypto-176-million-midterms-fairshake-2026

Crypto-linked groups have spent roughly **$176 million across more than 100 U.S. midterm races**, according to [Reuters’ October 27 analysis](https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/crypto-blitzes-midterms-with-176-million-support-allies-it-prepares-post-trump-2026-10-27/). Fairshake and its affiliates account for about **$150.8 million** of that total.

The question is what that money can deliver. For companies building exchanges, payment networks and investment products, the answer they want is a clearer set of rules for doing business in the United States.

An election win is only one step toward that outcome. Writing a bill, passing it and turning it into workable regulation are separate tests.

## Where the Money Goes

Fairshake is the biggest vehicle in this effort. Its financial backers include **Coinbase, Ripple and Andreessen Horowitz**, while affiliated groups include Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress, according to [FactCheck.org’s review of federal filings](https://www.factcheck.org/2026/08/fairshake-2/).

These are outside political groups. The [Federal Election Commission](https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-independent-expenditures/) defines independent expenditures as communications expressly supporting or opposing candidates that are made without coordination with their campaigns. Such spending is not subject to contribution limits.

That distinction matters when reading the headline number. An outside group can pay for television ads, digital campaigns or mailers supporting a candidate without handing that money to the candidate’s campaign.

The effort also crosses party lines. On October 5, reporter Patrick Svitek shared Fairshake’s announcement of a bipartisan slate of 32 lawmakers it was supporting.

[Post from @PatrickSvitek on X](https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/2107103313930137811)

Patrick Svitek shares Fairshake’s October 5 announcement of a bipartisan slate of 32 lawmakers.

## The People Writing the Checks

A [separate Reuters analysis](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/ultra-wealthy-crypto-executives-who-are-spending-big-midterms-2026-10-27/) found more than **$56 million in contributions from crypto-linked executives** during the 2025–2026 election cycle. Their giving includes causes beyond crypto.

| Executive | Reported contributions |
| --- | --- |
| Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen | At least $14.6 million |
| Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss | Nearly $13 million each |
| Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong | About $1 million |

These donations should **not be added to the $176 million spending total**: contributions and the subsequent spending they finance can overlap.

Following the money therefore means asking two questions: who supplied it, and who ultimately spent it? Treating every transfer between a donor, a PAC and an affiliated group as new spending would exaggerate the total.

## Why Congress Matters to the Business

The industry’s legislative ambitions ran into a clear obstacle on September 15. A Senate vote to advance the CLARITY Act failed **49–50**, short of the required 60 votes. The [official roll call](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1192/vote_119_2_00234.htm) records a failed cloture vote on the motion to proceed—a procedural hurdle, rather than a final vote on passage.

The bill concerns the regulation of digital commodities by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In practical terms, the debate is about which regulator oversees which activities and what obligations businesses must meet.

For an exchange deciding which assets to offer, or a founder deciding where to build, those answers can influence product design, compliance work and investment decisions. A favorable political atmosphere helps, but a company making multiyear plans also needs to understand the rules that will govern its business.

That is the case Fairshake makes in its own mission statement:

> “Fairshake supports candidates committed to securing the United States as the home to innovators building the next generation of the internet.”
>
> — [Fairshake, official mission statement](https://www.fairshakepac.com/)

There is a commercial reason this debate extends beyond token prices. As Blockster reported in its coverage of [Janus Henderson’s JQQQ launch](https://blockster.com/janus-henderson-brings-the-nasdaq-100-onchain-with-jqqq), established financial firms are bringing investment products onchain. These products make questions about oversight, investor access and protection increasingly concrete.

## Spending Cannot Guarantee the Outcome

Fairshake’s money has not always produced its preferred result. FactCheck.org documented its opposition to Illinois Democrats Juliana Stratton and La Shawn Ford in their congressional primaries. **Both won their nominations.**

The legislative outcome is uncertain, too. Winning a seat does not settle disagreements over the substance of a bill. Industry groups still have to persuade lawmakers that their proposals serve customers and the wider economy, as well as the companies funding the political effort.

Stand With Crypto’s October 27 post shows the other part of that strategy: mobilizing voters around candidates’ positions on digital assets. The advocacy group’s message is distinct from Fairshake’s outside spending, but both put congressional policy at the center of the election debate.

[Post from @standwithcrypto on X](https://twitter.com/standwithcrypto/status/2115082457532051968)

Stand With Crypto’s October 27 message urges supporters to consider candidates’ crypto positions ahead of the midterms.

For the industry, the meaningful result will come after the advertising stops. The test is whether the next Congress can produce rules that businesses can follow, customers can understand and regulators can enforce. Campaign spending can help put that debate on the agenda. It cannot finish the job.