Crypto political spending surges in primaries as spotlight shifts to Maryland
Crypto-focused political action committees are rapidly escalating their spending in US primary races, using millions of dollars to try to shape which lawmakers will be writing the next generation of digital asset legislation in Congress.
Recent filings with the US Federal Election Commission (FEC) show that Fairshake and a network of allied PACs – heavily funded by industry players such as Coinbase, Ripple, and other digital asset backers – have poured substantial sums into House and Senate contests across multiple states, including California, Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota.
One of the most active entities, Protect Progress, an affiliate of Fairshake, has emerged as a major spender on behalf of Democratic candidates. According to the filings, the group directed roughly $3 million toward House primaries in California and New Jersey, focusing on races where crypto regulation and financial innovation have become prominent policy themes.
On the Republican side, another Fairshake-aligned organization, Defend American Jobs, has channeled more than $411,000 into supporting Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota. Rounds has positioned himself as receptive to innovation in financial markets, making him an attractive candidate for crypto interests seeking allies in the Senate.
Although a cluster of states has already held primaries this week, industry attention is now pivoting to Maryland’s June 23 contests. Protect Progress has committed more than $3.1 million to media and advertising in support of Adrian Boafo, a Democrat running in Maryland’s 5th Congressional District. That level of spending places the race among the most expensive crypto-backed primary efforts of the current cycle.
New York is also on the radar. FEC data show that approximately $320,000 has been spent to bolster Representative Ritchie Torres, whose district faces its own June 23 primary. Torres has become one of the most prominent Democratic advocates for clearer digital asset rules, frequently engaging in debates over stablecoins, market structure, and consumer protections.
These outlays follow a string of primary victories in Texas, where Fairshake and associated PACs backed candidates who ultimately prevailed. Those races offered one of the clearest tests so far of whether concentrated crypto campaign spending can tilt the balance in congressional contests where digital asset policy is a central fault line.
Fairshake itself reported more than $193 million in available funds as of January, according to campaign finance disclosures cited in the filings. That war chest makes it one of the most heavily capitalized issue-focused PACs in the current election cycle, and underscores the scale at which the digital asset sector is now engaging with Washington.
The industry’s political footprint extends beyond Fairshake. Other crypto-aligned groups have entered the fray, including a PAC called Fellowship, which has received $11 million from firms such as Cantor Fitzgerald and Anchorage Digital. Another entity, the Blockchain Leadership Fund, has been capitalized with $175,000 from contributors including Chainlink and Anchorage. While smaller in comparison, these groups add additional channels through which crypto advocates can influence campaigns.
A key part of Fairshake’s strategy has been to explicitly target lawmakers viewed as obstructing or hostile to crypto-friendly regulation. Representative Al Green became one of the most visible examples after voting against the GENIUS Act, a stablecoin proposal, and the CLARITY Act, a bill aimed at defining digital asset market structure. Both measures are seen within the industry as crucial for bringing regulatory certainty to stablecoins and crypto trading platforms.
In response, Protect Progress spent $5 million supporting Christian Menefee, Green’s Democratic primary challenger in Texas’s 18th Congressional District. Menefee’s campaign benefited from a heavy wave of advertising and outreach funded by the PAC. Green ultimately lost the primary, an outcome that many in the industry interpreted as a signal that opposition to digital asset legislation can carry an electoral cost when well-funded groups get involved.
Maryland now represents the next major test of that theory. With more than $3.1 million already committed to Adrian Boafo, the state’s 5th District primary has become a showcase for the scale and sophistication of crypto-related election efforts. The spending puts Boafo’s race among the largest single investments by Protect Progress this cycle, highlighting how strategic the industry views this particular seat.
The multi-state strategy also illustrates how crypto groups are methodically working across party lines. Protect Progress is focused on backing Democrats it sees as open to innovation and regulatory clarity, while Defend American Jobs is concentrating on Republicans seen as supportive of competitive financial markets and technological development. Together, they aim to reshape both caucuses in Congress rather than aligning with just one party.
All of this political activity is unfolding as Congress weighs some of the most consequential digital asset legislation to date. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which aims to clarify the division of oversight between key market regulators and establish a firmer framework for token trading and custody, has already cleared the Senate Agriculture Committee in January and the Senate Banking Committee in May. The bill has now been placed on the Senate calendar for potential consideration by the full chamber.
For the crypto sector, the stakes of these primaries go well beyond individual candidacies. Lawmakers elected this cycle will likely be in office during critical decisions on stablecoin rules, securities versus commodities classifications, tax treatment of digital assets, and the role of banks and custodians in the ecosystem. As a result, PACs are targeting races where even small shifts in the composition of committees could tilt the trajectory of forthcoming regulation.
Maryland’s races are particularly important because they could send a signal about how voters respond to intensive, issue-specific advertising. If Boafo’s well-financed campaign succeeds, it will strengthen the perception that crypto PACs can reliably elevate candidates who support regulatory clarity, especially in districts where technology and financial services are key parts of the local economy. If the effort fails, it may prompt a reassessment of messaging strategies or target selection for the general election.
The New York contest surrounding Ritchie Torres offers another barometer. Torres has framed digital assets as part of a broader push to modernize financial infrastructure and improve inclusion, positioning crypto not just as a speculative asset class but as a tool for remittances, payments, and access to services. The backing he receives underscores that crypto PACs are not only rewarding quiet supporters, but also reinforcing the visibility of lawmakers willing to publicly champion specific digital asset bills.
Fairshake’s large balance sheet and the presence of multiple allied groups also point to a longer-term strategy. Rather than focusing solely on one election cycle, these PACs appear to be building durable influence networks – supporting newcomers, defending incumbents aligned with their priorities, and signaling clear consequences for those who oppose legislation seen as essential for industry growth. Over time, that could reshape caucus dynamics on key committees such as House Financial Services and Senate Banking.
At the same time, the growing flow of crypto money into elections is likely to intensify scrutiny from critics. Opponents argue that large industry-funded PACs risk allowing narrow corporate interests to overshadow concerns about consumer protection, systemic risk, and financial stability. They warn that big spending from a relatively young sector could accelerate regulatory capture or mute dissenting voices inside Congress.
Supporters of the PAC activity counter that many digital asset businesses feel they have been operating for years under unclear, inconsistent, or adversarial rules, and see political engagement as a necessary response. From their perspective, channeling funds into campaigns is a way to ensure that lawmakers understand the technology, recognize its economic potential, and are willing to craft rules that bring clarity rather than drive innovation offshore.
What is clear from the latest filings is that crypto has firmly moved from the fringes of political fundraising into the mainstream of campaign finance. The combination of large war chests, targeted spending, and a focused legislative agenda has turned these PACs into influential actors in a relatively short time. As more primaries unfold through June and into the summer, the outcomes in places like Maryland, New York, and beyond will help reveal how far that influence now extends.
With the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and other proposals like the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts waiting in the wings, the candidates emerging from this year’s primaries will determine whether the next Congress leans toward stricter oversight, pragmatic compromise, or aggressive promotion of digital asset innovation. Crypto PACs are betting heavily that, with enough money and message discipline, they can tip that balance in their favor.