SKN | Crypto PACs Prepare for 2028 as Democratic Control of Congress Raises Regulatory Stakes

Key Points

•  Cryptocurrency-backed political action committees spent approximately $176 million across 100 congressional races during the 2026 election cycle, with Fairshake and affiliated organizations accounting for $154.5 million.
•  Sherrod Brown’s victory in Ohio and other unsuccessful industry-backed campaigns challenge the perception that crypto political spending can reliably influence election outcomes.
• Fairshake retains more than $67 million for the next election cycle as the industry prepares to engage with a Democratic-controlled Congress and potentially greater regulatory scrutiny.

The cryptocurrency industry’s growing political influence faces a significant test following the 2026 US midterm elections, which delivered control of both chambers of Congress to Democrats. Despite spending approximately $176 million on congressional races, crypto-backed political action committees experienced several high-profile defeats, including the return of former Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio.

The electoral outcome introduces a different political environment for digital asset companies seeking regulatory clarity. With prominent cryptocurrency critics potentially assuming influential committee positions, the industry may face greater scrutiny while preparing for the 2028 elections.

Crypto Industry Spends $176 Million on Midterm Elections

Cryptocurrency-backed political action committees significantly expanded their election spending compared with the previous cycle.

According to Reuters, crypto super PACs spent approximately $176 million across 100 congressional races during the 2026 election cycle, including primary contests. This exceeded the more than $130 million spent in 2024.

Fairshake and its affiliated political committees accounted for approximately $154.5 million across 89 races.

The spending reflected the industry’s effort to influence congressional representation and support lawmakers considered favorable toward digital asset innovation and regulatory reform.

However, the Democratic victories have complicated that strategy. Kyle Bligen, executive director of the Decentralization Research Center, told Cointelegraph that the next Congress would create a fundamentally different environment for cryptocurrency companies, with significantly greater scrutiny expected.

Fairshake nevertheless enters the next election cycle with more than $67 million remaining.

Its spokesperson, Geoff Vetter, indicated that the organization intends to continue its political engagement, describing the 2028 elections as a new electoral map for the industry.

Ohio Becomes Crypto PACs’ Biggest Electoral Setback

Ohio emerged as the industry’s most expensive political contest, with cryptocurrency-backed groups spending more than $64 million attempting to keep Republican Senator Jon Husted in office.

The campaign ultimately failed, as Democrat Sherrod Brown defeated Husted in the special election to complete former Senator JD Vance’s term, which runs until January 2029.

The result carries particular significance because Brown had previously lost his Senate seat in 2024 after Fairshake spent approximately $40 million supporting Republican Bernie Moreno.

That earlier victory was widely viewed within the industry as evidence that substantial political spending could influence lawmakers’ electoral prospects.

This year’s outcome challenges that perception.

Brown also made cryptocurrency industry spending a central campaign issue, criticizing the involvement of wealthy digital asset investors in the political process.

The Ohio contest attracted more than $350 million in total independent expenditures, illustrating the broader scale of outside political spending.

Brown’s return could also have implications beyond the Senate Banking Committee. He may seek a senior position on the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Mixed Results Across Other Congressional Races

The cryptocurrency industry’s electoral performance varied considerably across the country.

In Nebraska, Republican Senator Pete Ricketts retained his seat after Fairshake affiliate Defend American Jobs spent approximately $13.5 million opposing independent challenger Dan Osborn.

Fairshake described the result as an important success in a competitive election cycle. Other Senate victories for industry-backed candidates included Barry Moore in Alabama and Andy Barr in Kentucky.

However, several other campaigns failed to produce the intended outcomes.

In Illinois, approximately $10 million spent by the Fairshake network opposing Juliana Stratton in the Democratic primary did not prevent her nomination. Stratton subsequently won the Senate election.

In Massachusetts, John Deaton lost despite approximately $700,000 in support from the crypto-backed Commonwealth Unity Fund.

Texas delivered another setback when Ken Paxton, who received cryptocurrency PAC support during the Republican runoff against John Cornyn, subsequently lost the general election to Democrat James Talarico.

The industry also suffered a House defeat when digital assets subcommittee chair Bryan Steil lost to Democrat Mitchell Berman despite receiving approximately $1.9 million in cryptocurrency PAC funding.

These results demonstrate that financial backing does not necessarily translate into electoral success, particularly when candidates face broader political and constituency considerations.

Democratic Congress Raises Questions Over Crypto Regulation

The shift in congressional control could complicate the industry’s legislative priorities, particularly the stalled CLARITY Act, which seeks to establish a regulatory framework for digital asset markets.

A Democratic-controlled Congress may introduce additional scrutiny and create new negotiating requirements for legislation affecting cryptocurrency exchanges, token issuers and other digital asset businesses.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a prominent critic of the cryptocurrency industry, is also positioned to potentially chair the Senate Banking Committee.

Her influence could affect congressional oversight and the direction of financial regulatory discussions.

Nevertheless, the election results do not indicate that every newly elected Democrat opposes cryptocurrency.

According to Stand With Crypto, 19 winning Senate candidates were classified as supportive of digital assets, while eight were categorized as opposed, based on the races called at the time of its assessment.

James Talarico, who defeated Paxton in Texas despite cryptocurrency PAC spending against him, previously supported legislation establishing a strategic Bitcoin reserve at the state level.

This suggests that the industry’s engagement with the incoming Congress will require a more nuanced approach than relying primarily on party affiliation.

Industry Leaders Emphasize Continued Regulatory Engagement

Despite the political shift, some industry executives believe cryptocurrency development will continue regardless of which party controls Congress.

BitGo CEO and co-founder Mike Belshe argued that the industry’s trajectory has remained consistent across different administrations and congressional majorities.

He pointed to the GENIUS Act becoming law, ongoing stablecoin rulemaking and regulatory work involving tokenization and digital asset markets as evidence of continued progress.

Fireblocks US policy director Jessica Martinez identified engagement with newly elected lawmakers as an important priority.

She noted that many incoming members have limited experience with cryptocurrency policy, making early education and relationship-building important to shaping the Democratic legislative agenda.

The industry’s immediate challenge may therefore involve developing relationships with lawmakers who have not yet established clear positions on digital asset regulation.

Outlook

The 2026 midterm elections mark a significant transition in the cryptocurrency industry’s political strategy. The failure of substantial spending to secure several high-profile victories, particularly in Ohio, suggests that financial influence alone may be insufficient to shape congressional outcomes. With more than $67 million remaining, Fairshake and affiliated organizations are preparing for another major political campaign in 2028. In the meantime, the industry’s ability to establish constructive relationships with Democratic lawmakers, address consumer protection concerns and maintain progress on regulatory legislation will be central to its position in Washington. The next phase may depend less on campaign spending and more on sustained policy engagement across party lines.