In the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, Americans will elect 35 of 100 Senate seats and all of the 435 voting seats of the House of Representatives.
The cratering popularity of President Donald Trump’s administration, which polls show is the result of everything from the economy to the War in Iran and his handling of immigration, has put Democrats in an historic lead.
The generic congressional ballot test, i.e., a poll that asks which party the respondent plans to support, recently showed that the Democrats had the largest mid-term lead of any party in the last 20 years.
But the Democrats have to contend not only with gerrymandering and a $1.8 billion slush fund for Trump’s political allies, but also the millions of dollars the crypto lobby is pouring into the elections.
According to Follow the Crypto, an accountability project tracking political donations from the crypto industry, political action committees and crypto execs combined have donated over $500 million to influence the 2026 elections.
Crypto’s partisan divide becomes even clearer
According to Follow the Crypto, crypto-associated Political Action Committees (PAC) spending on the 2026 elections has already exceeded $245 million. Super PACs, which cannot donate to political campaigns directly but can spend an unlimited amount of money, have spent $49 million this cycle.
Super PACs are showing an increasingly partisan preference, contributing $23.4 million to support Republicans. It’s more than double the $11.3 million it spent to support Democrats.
The difference is even more stark when considering contributions from companies and associated individuals, e.g., CEOs and other executives. Here, companies and associations have spent more than 11 times on Republicans than on Democrats.
Part of this vast divide in spending could be explained by not necessarily a partisan bias toward Republicans, but the fact that Republican attitudes toward the finance industry tend to value deregulation and relaxed oversight. Democrats are not opposed to crypto on the level of party platform, but tend to be more skeptical.
But PACs have also spent a considerable sum opposing Democrats as well. Indeed, they’ve spent nearly $2 million more opposing Democrats than they have supporting them.
Crypto PACs spent more against Democrats than for them. Source: Follow the Crypto
Furthermore, in three out of the four special elections for the House where crypto PACs backed the winner, the victor was a Republican:
Randy Fine (Florida 6th), $1.67 millionJimmy Patronis (Florida 1st), $558,000Clayton Fuller (Georgia 14th), $755,000
Crypto spends big in primaries, with mixed results
So far, most of the expenditures have been in primary elections, where the party decides among themselves which candidate will represent them in the general elections in November. Here, the crypto lobby can ensure that they have at least one crypto-friendly candidate on the ballot.
Three recent examples of profligate spending in primaries stand out. First is the Illinois senate primary that took place in March. Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton faced off against Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi.
Related: Crypto industry ties were a liability in Illinois primary
Kirashnamoorthi received only a nominal donation from crypto donors, but crypto PACs spent over $10 million on materials against Stratton. The spending against nearly totalled more than the total financial support for Stratton. In this case, it didn’t work. In fact, Stratton used the crypto money as a point against her opponent, and won by over seven percent of the vote.
Earlier this week, Georgia State Representative Jasmine Clark won the primary for Georgia’s 13th Federal Congressional District. Clark received 56% of the vote over her opponents Heavenly Kimes and Everton Blair, who received 21.5% and 11.6%, respectively.
Clark received massive support from the crypto lobby. According to Follow the Crypto, outside spending from PACs accounted for $4.2 million in contributions — over nine times the amount of money her campaign raised itself.
Elections analyst Matt Klein said that “one of Clark’s opponents showed me data suggesting that the millions of dollars in crypto [money] for her was a huge turn-off for Dem voters.”
Despite this, Clark still won. According to Klein, this is because the other campaigns lacked the finances to inform the electorate. “The problem: Voters had no way of knowing it was crypto money! To advertise that message, guess what you need…”
In Alabama, Senator Tommy Tuberville is leaving office, leaving an empty seat. The leading candidates to replace him, Steve Marshall, Jared Hudson and Barry Moore, faced off in a primary earlier this week.
Moore, who is favored by Trump, received $7.8 million in donations from the crypto lobby — almost four times the total raised by his opponent.
While Moore finished first in the primary results on Tuesday, he did not get the majority needed to secure the election. Now, he and Hudson are headed to a runoff.
Crypto sweep or careful messaging?
The crypto industry is already on track to break its previous record for spending in the 2024 presidential elections. But as shown above, it remains to be seen how effective crypto is as an actual organizing issue.
As reported in industry media, Fairshake, the largest crypto PAC, claimed a sweep in six primaries in which it spent money, claiming that a “powerful bipartisan mandate is being heard.”
But all the GOP candidates to which it donated were also endorsed by President Trump, a particularly powerful edge in red, Republican-dominated states like Alabama. Messaging in those campaigns reportedly concentrated on those associations, rather than the candidates’ positions on crypto.
Moore’s site draws particular attention to his association with Trump, which he doubles down on in his issues page. There is no mention of crypto and blockchain in his economic agenda, save for mention in support statements from other legislators.
Clark also received sizable donations, but was previously in a very tight race against her opponent Representative David Scott, before he passed away. As noted above, the fact that she received large donations from the crypto industry was not well known.
Any mention of crypto is notably absent from campaign sites or advertisements. Clark’s site makes no mention of digital assets in her agenda. Nor does she note crypto-associate organizations among her endorsements.
Crypto is increasingly becoming a political issue. Money can certainly make a difference in American elections, but even candidates don’t seem sold on it as a campaign issue.
Magazine: 5 tech predictions the mainstream media got horribly wrong
