Crypto cash is flooding the 2024 election. Here’s who’s benefiting.

A new political network funded by the cryptocurrency industry has spent more than $134 million trying to elect dozens of allies to Congress, mounting an unprecedented political effort to influence voters and secure favorable regulation.

The spending comes from an organization called Fairshake, along with two other affiliated crypto-funded groups, known as super PACs, which by law can spend unlimited sums in politics. Since January 2023, they have blitzed television and radio airwaves with ads involving 67 candidates, many of whom support crypto interests, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from AdImpact, a monitoring firm.

None of the ads viewed by The Post actually mention crypto, but Fairshake and its partners have a clear agenda: They hope to fill the halls of Congress with lawmakers who can help ward off stringent federal rules at a time when Washington is just beginning to explore new regulation of the industry.

In a handful of races, Fairshake and its partners — Defend American Jobs, which supports Republicans, and Protect Progress, which backs Democrats — account for a majority of political ad spending, The Post found, studying the period between Jan. 1, 2023, and Oct. 10 of this year.

How crypto’s $134 million in election ad buys breaks down

$50K

$250K

$1M

$10M

A chart showing the amount of money spent by crypto super PACs in support and in opposition to congressional candidates.

Crypto spending supporting candidates as share of positive ads

Hover over circles to see details

Crypto spending against candidates as share of negative ads

The super PACs are backed by Coinbase and Ripple, two companies that have faced federal scrutiny — and potential penalties — over their business practices. Their ad blitz underscores the industry’s rapid political ascendancy, which has already helped to defeat potential crypto skeptics — including California Rep. Katie Porter, a Democrat who vied for a Senate seat.

“They are attempting to buy policy, and they are implementing a strategy they think can do it using the elections,” said Rick Claypool, research director for Public Citizen, a campaign finance watchdog.

Asked about the spending, Josh Vlasto, a spokesman for Fairshake, said in a statement that the group seeks to “support candidates who embrace innovation, want to protect American jobs, and are committed to working across the aisle to get things done and oppose those who do not.”

“We are proud of the progress we have seen toward the creation of a sustainable bipartisan coalition and a consensus that there is an urgent need to pass responsible crypto and blockchain-focused regulation that advances innovation, protects American jobs, and roots out bad actors,” he said. “We will continue to execute this strategy through November and into the future.”

Here’s how — and why — crypto is spending its political cash:

It helps to have friends in high places — and the crypto industry has spent generously to ensure its most vocal allies in Congress stay there.

Across the country, Fairshake and its fellow super PACs have shelled out nearly $18.4 million on glowing ads for 23 lawmakers who hold critical spots on key congressional committees that directly oversee crypto, underscoring the industry’s desire to ward off unwanted regulation.

Many of the ads promote members of the House Financial Services Committee, which has produced a series of pro-crypto bills in recent years, including some that would defang regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Crypto super PACs poured $63,000 into Minnesota’s 6th District, for example, where Republican Rep. Tom Emmer, the House majority whip, faces an easy run for reelection this year. Emmer is a longtime, public crypto advocate and senior member of the financial services panel, and he has actively encouraged his colleagues to support crypto in exchange for campaign contributions.

Fairshake has also spent close to $1.89 million to promote Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford in Nevada, praising him for “leading on jobs” and lowering drug costs. And it has shelled out roughly $2 million to tout GOP Rep. Young Kim and her “trusted leadership” in California.

Both serve on the House’s leading crypto-focused committee, where they have spoken favorably about the industry, and Kim last month chastised the SEC for its regulation and oversight.

Other candidates who have benefited from crypto cash, including Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), sit on the House Agriculture Committee, which oversees the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), another agency that regulates crypto. The super PACs ran about $1.2 million worth of ads supporting her candidacy.

Crypto magnates haven’t just supported powerful lawmakers who sit on key committees; they have also spent generously on advertisements to boost longtime allies. Many of those beneficiaries supported a bill adopted by the House in May that largely eased regulation on the industry. It has not received a vote in the Senate.

The measure, called the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, or FIT 21, would shift some crypto oversight away from the SEC and toward the CFTC, which some critics see as friendlier to industry.

House lawmakers drafted that bill with the help of lobbyists from companies including Coinbase, a leading financier of Fairshake. Coinbase and some of its allied Fairshake funders have also squared off with the SEC in court over charges that they have violated investor protection laws.

The Fairshake network shelled out $2.8 million to help promote the reelection of Rep. Michelle Steel, for example, a California Republican who voted in favor of FIT 21 earlier this year. It also purchased $1.1 million worth of ad time for Democratic Rep. Shri Thanedar of Michigan, who personally owns and invests in cryptocurrency.

Crypto super PACs have also strategically targeted new contenders for Congress, pouring more than $19 million into 19 races in the hopes of recruiting a new generation of crypto-friendly votes.

In these contests, advertising support is especially critical: Often, aspiring House members lack the funds to introduce themselves to voters. Fairshake and its affiliates have stepped into that void, running 30-second spots that are largely biographical in nature, omitting any reference to crypto.

In Alabama, crypto interests have shelled out nearly $2.9 million to aid Shomari Figures, a Democrat who seeks to represent the Montgomery area. Fairshake and its allies spent heavily to promote Figures — and attack his opponent — through a hotly contested primary from which he emerged victorious this year. That amounted to nearly 80 percent of all spending on pro-Figures ads in the election.

Like many newcomers backed by crypto cash, Figures promises on his campaign website to “Embrace the new landscape around digital assets, like Cryptocurrency, to stimulate innovation and technological advancement.”

Republican candidate Craig Goldman similarly came out of a fierce primary season in Texas earlier this year after benefiting from more than $875,000 in crypto-funded ads.

The candidate, who seeks to represent a House district just west of Fort Worth, heralds crypto on his campaign site as a technology that “holds great promise and potential to create another wave of jobs, technological innovation and economic opportunity.”

Crypto interests have launched some of their largest ad buys around seven Senate candidates, whose races could determine control of the narrow and bitterly divided chamber after November.

That money — totaling more than $70 million — has predominantly supported Republicans, suggesting the industry believes it may face a better regulatory environment if Democrats lose their majority to the GOP.

The industry has been especially aggressive in Ohio, where Republican candidate Bernie Moreno seeks to unseat Democratic incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown. By the end of September, the GOP-leaning Defend American Jobs super PAC had spent nearly $41 million on ads that praise Moreno’s stances on immigration and the economy — a figure that far dwarfs what the candidate has spent.

The race is especially consequential: Brown is a crypto skeptic who leads the Senate Banking Committee, which oversees digital finance. He has previously called for stronger regulation of the industry, making him a top target of crypto donors.

Crypto super PACs have similarly spent more than $4 million to promote Jim Banks, a Republican in the House who now seeks to represent Indiana in the Senate, and over $3.4 million to aid Jim Justice, who is vying to capture the seat soon to be vacated by West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin III, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats. In Utah, the industry has committed nearly $2.8 million toward aiding Rep. John Curtis in his campaign.

But the industry has also supported some Democrats nationally, shelling out $9.5 million for Elissa Slotkin in Michigan and $9.2 million for Ruben Gallego in Arizona. Both Democrats currently serve in the House, where they have supported pro-crypto legislation.

Crypto super PACs have reserved their most aggressive ads for candidates seen as hostile to the industry, a move perhaps meant to spook lawmakers in Congress, who may want to avoid a last-minute political barrage in the weeks before Election Day.

The ferocity of the industry’s opposition was on clear display last year, when Fairshake and other crypto super PACs flooded California airwaves with ads attacking Porter. The congresswoman historically has supported tougher financial regulations — and with crypto, she has long raised alarms that it threatens Americans’ wallets and the broader economy as well.

Running in a crowded primary, Porter faced a barrage of negative ads — totaling nearly $10 million — that accused her of engaging in “deceitful politics” and collecting campaign checks from drug and bank lobbyists, charges she repeatedly denied.

In an interview earlier this year, Porter lamented that the ads “had no mention of crypto,” which financed the 30-second spots, adding that crypto “never came up” on the campaign trail, either.

Yet she said the volume of spending had a decisive effect and helped scuttle her candidacy — and, if applied nationally, it could ultimately have a significant effect on Congress itself.

“Regardless of where one lands on the appropriate amount and type of regulation in crypto,” she said, “that kind of naked political power does not create the best regulation.”