Crypto’s campaign money is piling up fast, and Public Citizen says the industry has become the biggest tech-related corporate political spender in the 2026 U.S. election cycle so far.
- $206 million in crypto-related political spending, according to Public Citizen
- Fairshake remains the industry’s main political vehicle
- Sherrod Brown is back in the industry’s crosshairs
Public Citizen’s Aug. 27 analysis of FEC records puts crypto companies at $206 million in the 2026 cycle, ahead of $76 million from online betting firms and $62 million from businesses tied to Big Tech, AI, and data centers. The point is hard to miss: crypto is not just lobbying from the sidelines. It is spending like a sector that wants a seat at the rule-making table and a hand on the pen.
The group says corporate contributions across all sectors have reached $646 million so far. That is 40% above the $461 million recorded across the full 2024 presidential cycle and more than triple the $184.1 million reported during the 2022 midterms. Crypto, online betting, and AI/data center businesses together accounted for $344 million, or 53% of the corporate contributions disclosed to the FEC in Public Citizen’s analysis.
That money is not sitting in a vault for moral support. A large chunk is moving through Fairshake, the crypto-aligned super PAC that has become the industry’s favorite blunt instrument. A super PAC can raise and spend unlimited amounts on independent political spending, as long as it does not coordinate directly with candidates. In plain English: it can spend big, but it cannot legally sit in the campaign war room.
Public Citizen calculated $83 million in corporate contributions to Fairshake through the second quarter. FEC records show Fairshake reported $137.4 million in total receipts between Jan. 1, 2025 and July 31, 2026, and $88.7 million in disbursements over that period. That included $65 million transferred to affiliated committees and about $13.3 million in independent expenditures, or ads and other spending not coordinated with campaigns.
By the end of July, Fairshake had nearly $113 million in cash on hand. That is not a casual pile of PAC leftovers. It is a very serious political war chest.
The group’s affiliates, Protect Progress and Defend American Jobs, have been deployed across both parties. That bipartisan spread matters. Crypto is not pretending to be a movement of ideological purity. It is buying leverage wherever it can find it.
By August, Protect Progress had spent roughly $113, 120 supporting Rep. Suzan DelBene, about $105, 040 backing Rep. Kim Schrier, and approximately $103, 020 supporting Rep. Marilyn Strickland. Defend American Jobs spent close to $506, 917 supporting Republican Amanda McKinney. The network had also backed nearly 50 candidates who secured party nominations by the end of primary season.
That is how influence gets built in Washington. Not with one giant splash, but with a long series of targeted hits. Pick the races, back the winners, and keep the lawmakers who matter on speaking terms with your industry.
Fairshake also entered the final stretch of the cycle with $122 million available for spending before the Nov. 3 general election, according to prior reporting cited in the material. That cash has already shown up in specific contests.
Protect Progress spent $5 million supporting Democrat Christian Menefee in the Texas 18th Congressional District runoff, and another $2.8 million opposing then Rep. Al Green. Fairshake-linked groups spent more than $8 million across races in Maryland, New York, and Utah in June, including support for Adrian Boafo and Rep. Ritchie Torres. Later, Protect Progress spent nearly $1 million in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District Democratic primary involving Rep. Shri Thanedar and challenger Donavan McKinney.
Then there is Ohio, where the industry appears ready to go after one of its most persistent critics.
Fairshake has prepared at least $30 million to oppose former Sen. Sherrod Brown, who is seeking a return to the Senate against Republican Sen. Jon Husted in Ohio’s November special election. The planned spending push came just days after the Senate failed to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act on Sept. 15, when a procedural motion to begin debate fell 50 votes to 49, short of the 60 votes needed.
That bill fight matters because it sits at the center of crypto’s Washington agenda. The broader policy arguments are about who gets to regulate digital assets, whether tokens should be treated like securities or commodities, how stablecoins should be handled, and whether developers of decentralized software deserve legal protection from being swept into enforcement crossfire. The dispute over stablecoin rewards, presidential ethics provisions, protections for decentralized software developers, and regulatory authority is really a dispute over power.
Brown is not just some random target. He chaired the Senate Banking Committee from 2021 through January 2025, which made him one of the more important skeptics facing the industry in Congress. In 2024, Fairshake spent more than $40 million supporting Republican Bernie Moreno against Brown. Moreno won in November and later joined the Senate Banking Committee. Crypto now looks ready to try again, because apparently one bruising election was not enough.
Fairshake spokesperson Josh Vlasto said in 2025 that the group would continue supporting candidates it considers favorable toward crypto and opposing candidates it views as hostile to the industry.
“would continue supporting candidates it considers favorable toward crypto and opposing candidates it views as hostile to the industry.”
No mystery there. That is standard Washington hardball, just with more blockchain branding and better-funded attack ads.
The spending extends beyond Fairshake as well. Gemini Trust Company contributed $10 million to MAGA Inc., which represented most of the $17 million in new corporate money MAGA Inc. reported during the period. FEC filings showed Gemini’s contribution came from two Bitcoin transactions made on June 19, each valued at more than $5 million. The contribution was reported in July. In practical terms, the Bitcoin appears to have been used as the source of funds behind the donation, not as a campaign committee being paid in crypto and taking the coins to the clerk’s office like some kind of libertarian fever dream.
Jump Crypto Holdings also gave $4 million to Jump PAC in the second quarter. So Fairshake may be the flagship, but it is not the only vessel carrying crypto money into politics.
Public Citizen estimated in June that crypto had contributed $189 million during the 2026 cycle. Its August update raised that to $206 million, an increase of $17 million. Campaign finance totals move as filings arrive, so the exact number will keep shifting. The direction, though, is unmistakable: more money, more pressure, more attempts to shape the rules before the rules harden around the industry.
There is a fair argument that crypto is simply doing what every serious industry does in Washington. Banks do it. Oil does it. Big Tech does it. The difference is that crypto still markets itself as the rebel, the decentralization crowd, the anti-establishment alternative, while using a very establishment playbook once the stakes get high.
That is not hypocrisy so much as a reminder that ideals and incentives rarely stay in separate rooms for long. If the industry wants friendlier treatment on market structure, stablecoins, and developer protections, it is going to spend heavily to get it. If it wants to keep hostile regulators at bay, it will keep funding candidates who will pick up the phone.
In Washington, crypto may sell decentralization. In practice, it is building a highly centralized influence machine, one super PAC, one filing, and one race at a time.
Key questions and takeaways
-
Why is crypto spending so much on U.S. elections?
Because policy directly affects the business. The industry wants friendlier rules on market structure, stablecoins, and developer protections, and it is spending heavily to shape those outcomes. -
What makes Fairshake so important?
Fairshake is the main crypto-aligned super PAC, and it can spend unlimited amounts independently. That makes it the industry’s biggest political weapon. -
Is crypto backing only one party?
No. The spending is spread across Democrats and Republicans. That is a hedge, not a loyalty oath. -
Why is Sherrod Brown a target?
Brown has been one of crypto’s toughest skeptics in Congress and previously chaired the Senate Banking Committee. Fairshake spent more than $40 million against him in 2024 and now appears ready to hit him again. -
What does the failed Senate vote mean for crypto?
It shows the policy fight is still unresolved. The Senate’s failure to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act means the industry will keep pushing in Congress while trying to shape the next round of negotiations.
Further reading
A few related angles worth keeping on the radar:
- Crypto firms pour $206 million into the 2026 U.S. election cycle
- Public Citizen report on corporate super PAC spending in the 2026 midterms
- Fairshake targets Sherrod Brown with $30 million after CLARITY Act failure
- Sherrod Brown faces $30M crypto push after CLARITY Act stalls
- Fairshake enters general election with $122M war chest after mixed primary results
