1. How is crypto showing up in the 2026 midterm campaigns?
Less than two weeks before the November 3 elections, crypto has entered U.S. campaigns mainly as a line of attack. Democratic candidates are using the industry's political spending and its closeness to President Donald Trump to argue that powerful interests are trying to buy seats in Congress, while the industry's own ads avoid mentioning digital assets at all.
Advocates have long promised that crypto owners would form a voting bloc able to swing close races. That bloc has not materialized as a decisive force. What has appeared instead is a campaign theme in which the sector is cast as an example of corruption, tied to Trump and to the money flowing into races across the country.
The framing matters because voters have placed government corruption near the top of their concerns. A poll this month found 88% of respondents at least very concerned about it, ranking it ahead of inflation, gas prices and healthcare. Candidates who link crypto to that worry are drawing on an issue with broad resonance.
2. Which candidates are running against crypto money?
Senator Mark Warner, the Virginia Democrat seeking another term, is running an advertisement that attacks Trump over the wealth the president has gained in office and a jet he accepted as a gift from Qatar. The ad says Trump earned hundreds of millions of dollars from a crypto memecoin. Its verdict: "That's not governing. It's grifting."
Sherrod Brown, the former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is trying to return to the Senate from Ohio and treats the crypto spending against him as a badge of honor. In a podcast interview, he said the "crypto/data-center crowd" had reached $40 million. Fairshake, a crypto-focused political action committee, has largely funded the advertising opposing him in a race against Republican incumbent Jon Husted.
Brown presents the contest as ordinary voters against tech billionaires. He groups crypto and data-center interests together and accuses them of trying to buy the seat because he would not work for them. In a May speech, he said the industry knows he will take it on, and he said the industry understands that he would hold it accountable.
Fairshake spent tens of millions of dollars trying to unseat Brown in 2024 and has resumed major spending this cycle. Its ads against him do not mention crypto, a spokesman confirmed.
3. What other races have featured crypto conflicts?
Oliver Gilbert, a Florida Democrat running for Congress, built part of his campaign around the industry after Fairshake spent $2 million in an unsuccessful primary effort against him. In an ad, he said Trump and "crypto con artist billionaires" had targeted him. He accused crypto interests of funding dark-money attacks that spread falsehoods about his record, and he pledged to protect seniors from crypto scams.
Two Senate candidates ran into the same friction in their primaries. Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota and Juliana Stratton in Illinois were both Fairshake targets. Stratton is described as one of the group's most high-profile losses, and she said a "MAGA-backed crypto PAC" spent millions on attack ads against her.
The pattern across these races is consistent. Crypto money enters through a super PAC, the targeted candidate responds by naming the industry, and the spending becomes part of the candidate's message. For several Democrats, being opposed by crypto has turned into a campaign asset.
4. Why are Democrats tying crypto to Trump?
The midterms are widely read as a referendum on Trump, who has urged supporters to vote with him in mind. His aggressive push for crypto, and the personal financial benefit he has drawn from it, are part of the record that opponents want voters to weigh. Many Democrats, Warner among them, argue that crypto belongs in any discussion of corruption in the administration.
Will Ragland, vice president of research in advocacy at the Center for American Progress, said the president's efforts to profit from crypto are a weekly target for critics. In his view, the industry tied itself to Trump and his allies after the 2024 election. The group's analysis points to MAGA Inc., Trump's main super PAC, which received almost $89 million from crypto interests, more than any other industry.
Ragland called the industry's early strategy a "very poor" decision. Donors had backed both parties but leaned toward Trump and congressional Republicans. He acknowledged that the approach worked in part by ending investigations and opening a direct line to the White House. Yet the Center's live tracker estimates Trump's crypto earnings at about $2.4 billion, and he said criticism has reached a "fever pitch," leaving the industry an "uphill battle" to recover.
That assessment reflects a wider argument about political strategy. Backing both parties is the conventional approach for an industry seeking durable influence, because it protects against a change in control. Leaning heavily toward one side can deliver quick results, but it ties the industry's fortunes to that side's standing with voters.
The close ties have brought concrete benefits. Regulators friendly to crypto have dropped enforcement actions and are writing new rules. The longer-term price of that alignment, the analysis suggests, may exceed the value of the campaign contributions that bought it.
5. What happened to the CLARITY Act?
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, known as the CLARITY Act, was the industry's top priority in Washington. It stalled in the Senate last month, and its prospects for the rest of the year look slim. The industry's association with Trump may have contributed to the collapse.
Democrats demanded strict ethics limits on government officials, and they judged the protections Trump offered to be insufficient. Because the bill needed Democratic votes to move forward, the dispute over presidential business interests became an obstacle to a market-structure law that the sector had pursued for years.
The episode illustrates the political cost of the strategy Ragland criticized. Close alignment with one party helped on enforcement and regulation, but it made it harder to assemble the bipartisan coalition that major legislation requires.
6. How is the industry responding?
The Blockchain Association, a Washington advocacy group, said it wants rules that do not depend on who holds the White House or Congress. Its chief policy officer, Lindsay Fraser, said politics has become polarized and that many industries are caught in partisan fights. The association will keep working with both parties, she said, and aims to keep the United States leading in crypto development and innovation.
Fairshake, meanwhile, continues to spend. The group has won most of its primary contests this year and is backing dozens of incumbents in the general election. It is opposing Brown with at least $40 million, which could make the Ohio contest the most expensive congressional race in U.S. history.
Fairshake draws its funding largely from Coinbase, Ripple and a16z crypto. Its decision to leave crypto out of its advertising reflects how the industry views its own issue: as a topic better kept out of voters' sight even while it pays for the campaign around it.
7. What is Fairshake and why does its approach matter?
Fairshake is a political action committee funded by crypto companies. A super PAC of this kind can raise and spend large sums on advertising independently of the candidates it supports or opposes, which is why its spending can reach into the tens of millions of dollars in a single race.
Its strategy this year has been to back candidates seen as friendly to the industry and to oppose those seen as hostile. The group won most of its primary contests, and it is supporting dozens of incumbents in the general election. In the races described above, however, its opposition has also handed opponents a story to tell.
The decision to keep crypto out of the ads is part of that calculation. An advertisement that never names the industry cannot be dismissed as a pitch for digital assets, and it avoids a topic that ranks low with voters. The cost is that the connection between the money and its source becomes the opponent's message instead.
For candidates such as Brown, Gilbert, Flanagan and Stratton, the identity of the spender is itself the argument. Naming the donors behind the advertising lets them describe the contest as one between voters and wealthy interests, a theme that does not depend on any position about crypto policy.
8. What happens after November 3?
The elections will help determine whether the industry gets its market-structure law. Democrats could win the House and possibly the Senate, which would change the environment for crypto lobbyists and lengthen the odds of passing a major industry-friendly bill.
For lobbyists, the calendar is the main constraint. The CLARITY Act has already stalled, and the new Congress will take office with a different balance of power if Democrats make gains. A bill that could not clear the Senate under the current arrangement would face a more skeptical audience, and the ethics demands that helped sink it would likely return in any new negotiation.
Crypto has not proved decisive for voters. A May survey ranked it very low among voter priorities and found that respondents did not trust the Trump administration to oversee digital assets. The industry's political muscle therefore rests more on money than on a mobilized electorate.
There is also a risk specific to Brown's race. As a former Banking Committee chairman, he could block industry legislation if he returned to a similar role. A campaign meant to remove one of the sector's most prominent critics could, if it fails, leave him with more leverage over the rules the industry wants.