1. How did crypto super PACs fare in the 2026 midterms?
Crypto super PACs backed the winning side in 28 of 30 House races that had been called by Wednesday afternoon, November 4, 2026, but only one of four Senate races, according to a tally of Federal Election Commission filings. Of the $89.5 million that four industry-funded committees spent on projected races since September 1, just $21.9 million, or 24.4%, landed on the winning side.
The split is stark. Dozens of House outcomes went the way the industry's money pointed, yet the largest single expenditure of the cycle did not. The result leaves crypto's political operation with a lopsided scorecard: a high win rate across many modest contests and a costly miss in the one race that absorbed most of the cash.
The numbers also arrive at a delicate moment for digital-asset policy. Control of Congress is projected to shift to the Democratic Party, which complicates the industry's legislative hopes, and the election gives the first real measure of how far political spending can move outcomes.
A super PAC is a committee that may raise and spend unlimited sums to support or oppose candidates, provided it does not coordinate directly with their campaigns. Its spending is reported to the FEC as independent expenditures, which is what makes a tally like this one possible. The model has become a familiar vehicle for industries that want to influence elections without contributing directly to candidates.
A win rate is also a limited measure of influence. Many of the races on the list involved incumbents who were widely expected to prevail, so backing them may reflect the committees' ability to pick likely winners as much as their ability to change results. Measuring the causal effect of spending would require comparing outcomes with and without it, which a scorecard cannot do.
2. How the tally was built
The count covers independent expenditures disseminated since September 1 by four crypto-aligned super PACs, drawn from the 24-hour and 48-hour reports that committees file with the FEC. Those reports were reviewed as of 1:13 p.m. Eastern time on November 4, and race results were scored against projections as of 1:22 p.m. that day. Spending from November 1 through 3 may not yet appear in the filings, so totals could rise.
The window captures $90.22 million of spending across 36 races, four for the Senate and 32 for the House. That compares with $169.99 million reported for the entire cycle by the same four committees together with Fellowship PAC. Two House contests had not been projected at the time of the count: Representative David Rouzer's race in North Carolina and Representative Aisha Wahab's race in California.
A separate tally of one committee, Fairshake, showed 29 wins in 34 races in which it spent, with several still uncalled. Because that count covers a single committee and a different scope, its totals are not interchangeable with the four-committee figures reported here.
The tally also depends on how races are classified. A race counts as a win when the committee's spending supported the candidate projected to prevail, or opposed the candidate projected to lose. A race is a loss when the spending ran against the projected winner. Contests that have not been called are excluded, so the record can still shift as the remaining results come in.
3. Ohio absorbed most of the money
The special Senate election in Ohio drew $64.05 million, about 71% of all spending in the window. Defend American Jobs and Digital Freedom Fund both spent to support Republican Senator Jon Husted and to oppose Democrat Sherrod Brown. Brown was projected the winner. Ohio accounts for roughly 94.7% of the $67.66 million spent on losing sides, which is why a single race dominates the overall record.
Defend American Jobs also spent $13.48 million opposing independent candidate Dan Osborn in Nebraska, where Republican Senator Pete Ricketts was projected to win. That race was one of the Senate wins for the industry's preferred outcome. Digital Freedom Fund went zero for three, having also opposed Democrats James Talarico in Texas and Josh Turek in Iowa, both of whom were projected winners.
Concentrating so much money in one contest is a strategic choice with obvious risk. A committee that spreads funds across dozens of House seats can accumulate wins cheaply, while one that backs a marquee Senate race stakes a large share of its resources on a single result. The Ohio outcome shows the downside of the latter approach.
Ohio's special election was the focal point because of its importance to Senate arithmetic. A seat that could tip a closely divided chamber attracts outsized investment from any group with a stake in legislation, and the amounts spent there dwarf the totals for most individual House races, where the sums are measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than tens of millions.
The Nebraska contest stands out for a different reason. Osborn ran as an independent rather than under a party label, which made the race unusual and gave the committee a clear opponent to target. The outcome there matched the committee's preference, adding to the industry's small Senate tally and showing that even a very large expenditure can coincide with a result that was already leaning that way.
4. Why the Senate spending mattered for the Clarity Act
The industry's interest in the Senate is tied to the Clarity Act, the market structure legislation that stalled in the chamber in September. Cody Carbone, chief executive of the Digital Chamber, told reporters at the time that Democrats who did not plan to vote yes wanted the vote delayed. His concern was that they feared PAC spending could affect their own races, and he said such lawmakers were likely to feel "a little nervous and hesitant about what the PAC money can do to your race".
That dynamic gives the election results added weight beyond the raw win-loss figures. If political spending is seen as an effective threat, lawmakers may weigh it when deciding how to vote. If it is seen to have fallen short in the highest-profile race, the leverage that the money was meant to create could weaken.
Market structure legislation is intended to settle which federal regulator oversees which digital assets and to set rules for exchanges and intermediaries. The industry has pushed for it for years, arguing that unclear boundaries between agencies leave companies exposed to enforcement. The bill's slow progress in the Senate explains why committees invested so much in that chamber.
5. Two incumbents backed with $1 million each lost
Fairshake spent about $1 million in October on each of six House incumbents who had voted for the Clarity Act in 2025. Two of the six lost. Representative Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican, was defeated by Democrat Mitchell Berman, and Representative Bill Huizenga, a Michigan Republican, lost to Democrat Sean McCann.
House Financial Services Committee Chair French Hill, an Arkansas Republican, was projected to win by 1.8 percentage points, a narrow margin for the lawmaker who leads the panel that handles much of the industry's legislation. The other incumbents in the group of six were not reported as defeated.
The tally lists the committees' records as follows: Protect Progress won all nine races in which it spent, Defend American Jobs won 16 of 17, Fairshake won four of six, and Digital Freedom Fund won none of three. The differences reflect the kinds of races each committee entered, with some picking safer incumbents and others taking on close or high-stakes contests.
The October spending on those six incumbents was a reward for their earlier votes as well as a bid to keep allies in office. Backing members who supported the Clarity Act sends a message to other lawmakers that support can be repaid. Losing two of the six, however, blunts that message, because it shows that a seven-figure investment does not guarantee a seat.
Hill's narrow projected margin has its own significance. As the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, he has been a leading voice on digital-asset legislation, and his continued presence in the next Congress matters to the industry regardless of which party holds the majority.
6. The national picture after Election Day
Projections show Democrats winning control of the House with 238 seats to 146 for Republicans, with 51 races still uncalled. In the Senate, Democrats are projected at 54 seats to 44, with two uncalled. Those margins mean the incoming majority will not depend on the narrow outcomes where crypto money was most concentrated.
For an industry that spent heavily to support candidates it considered friendly, a Democratic Congress changes the calculation. Legislation such as the Clarity Act would need support from lawmakers some of whom were targeted by industry spending, a fact that could shape negotiations in the next session.
The projected Senate margin is large enough that Democrats would hold a comfortable majority even if the two uncalled races go the other way. The House margin is similarly wide. That leaves less room for the swing votes that crypto-friendly lawmakers have sometimes provided to move bills across the finish line.
7. What happens next
More data is on the way. Filings covering the final days before the election are still being posted, and the totals for each committee may change as they appear. Two House races remain unprojected, and the uncalled seats in both chambers could alter the final scorecard.
Attention will then turn to the next Congress, which convenes in January. Industry groups and lawmakers will decide whether to pursue market structure legislation, how to approach a new majority, and how much to spend in future cycles. The lesson from this election may be that the volume of money spent matters less than where it is placed.