How much money did crypto companies invest to influence the US election? A detailed look at the donations from industry giants

summary

• In 2024, cryptocurrency companies directly invested more than $119 million to influence federal elections, primarily into a nonpartisan super PAC dedicated to electing pro-crypto candidates and defeating cryptocurrency skeptics.

• Cryptocurrency companies are the dominant corporate political spenders so far in 2024, as nearly half (48%) of all corporate funds donated during this year’s elections ($248 million to date) came from cryptocurrency supporters.

• Koch Industries ranked second in 2024, but was a distant second. The privately held conglomerate owned by Charles Koch (formerly the late David Koch) gave $25 million to the Koch-controlled Americans for Prosperity Initiative and $3.25 million to Republicans elected to Congress.

• Direct corporate election spending on this scale is unprecedented. Cryptocurrency companies’ combined spending over the past three election cycles, at $129 million, already accounts for 15% of all known corporate contributions since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, totaling $884 million. 92% of corporate cryptocurrency spending came in 2024.

• Cryptocurrency companies now rank second in total election-related spending since Citizens United, behind only fossil fuel companies, which have spent $176 million over the past 14 years, including $73 million from Koch Industries.

• The cryptocurrency industry’s Fairshake PAC and its affiliates took in nearly $114 million directly from corporate backers, far more than any other outside spender this cycle. The Koch-backed hybrid PAC Americans for Prosperity Action came in second, taking in nearly $26 million, mostly from Koch Industries.

• Fairshake’s corporate backing is unprecedented. Although Citizens United has allowed unlimited corporate contributions since 2010, the newcomer is already second only to a super PAC dedicated to electing Republicans to the U.S. Senate in terms of corporate donations received. That super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, has received nearly $119 million in direct corporate contributions over the past 14 years, mostly from fossil fuel companies but also from a host of other industries, including cryptocurrency, tobacco, and for-profit prisons.

Preface

Cryptocurrency companies are investing heavily to make crypto regulation a top issue for candidates in the 2024 election.

Crypto industry companies (primarily Coinbase and Ripple) have invested more than $119 million in actual funds into the 2024 election to date, almost entirely into super PACs dedicated to promoting pro-crypto candidates and attacking crypto skeptics (see Table 1).

The main beneficiary of corporate crypto cash was Fairshake PAC, a super PAC that raised $202.9 million. More than half of Fairshake’s funding ($107.9 million, or 53%) came directly from companies that would profit from the PAC’s efforts, primarily Coinbase and Ripple. The rest of the PAC’s funding came primarily from billionaire cryptocurrency executives and venture capitalists, including $44 million from the founder of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, $5 million from the Winklevoss twins, and $1 million from Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong.

This corporate tsunami of crypto cash is an unprecedented attempt by for-profit companies to put private financial priorities over the public good. “Money moves the needle,” Brian Armstrong, the billionaire CEO of Coinbase, told Axios. “For better or worse, that’s how our system works.”

For Americans who want the federal government to put the interests of a stable economy first and crack down on Ponzi schemes and scams, cryptocurrency’s corporate influence undermining our political process will only get worse.

Table 1: Contribution of crypto industry companies to the 2024 election.

Data source: OpenSecrets.org

Thanks to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, corporations can spend as much as they want to sway election results in their favored candidates. However, there are some limits on corporate political spending. Corporations can’t donate directly to campaigns, but they can donate to super PACs and other types of outside groups as long as those groups don’t coordinate directly with a candidate’s official campaign. Anti-“pay to play” laws have long prohibited companies that have contracts with the federal government from donating to campaigns. (Citizens United joined a complaint filed with the FEC alleging that Coinbase violated that law by donating $25 million to Fairshake and $500,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund because Coinbase is a federal contractor for the U.S. Marshals Service and the donations were made when the company was legally prohibited from doing so.)

In the decade following the Citizens United ruling, donations to super PACs surged. Super PAC donations primarily come from billionaires, with just 25 wealthy individuals contributing about $1.4 billion during that period—almost half of all super PAC donations . Direct corporate donations totaled just $313 million between 2010 and 2020.

Total spending by cryptocurrency companies over the past three election cycles—$129 million—already accounts for 15% of all known corporate contributions since 2010, which now total $884 million. Direct corporate election spending on this scale is unprecedented (see chart 1).

Cryptocurrency companies already rank second in total election-related spending, behind only fossil fuel companies, which have spent $176 million over the past 14 years, including $73 million from Koch Industries, a conglomerate known for its prolific donations to Americans for Prosperity and a particularly active supporter of the “Tea Party” Republicans during the Obama administration.

Figure 1: Corporate donations will influence federal elections after Citizens United highlights donations from cryptocurrency companies

Data source: OpenSecrets.org

This analysis is necessarily limited to corporate contributions to Super PACs and Hybrid PACs, which are disclosed to the Federal Election Commission. Hybrid PACs have a bank account from which they can spend money directly in support of candidates, operating with all the restrictions of a traditional PAC, and a separate bank account that operates as a Super PAC and can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations and wealthy donors as long as they do not coordinate directly with candidates. Corporations can and do contribute to dark money groups organized as 501(c)(4) nonprofits or 501(c)(6) business groups, which are not required to disclose their supporters. Cedar Innovation Foundation, a dark money group that supports cryptocurrency, has run online ads targeting Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), who are considered cryptocurrency skeptics.

Crypto giants’ big spending strategies

So far, the cryptocurrency giant’s big-spending strategy appears to be paying off:

• Cryptocurrency moguls pledged money in Montana’s Senate race — but didn’t say which candidate they’d support or oppose — while Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who has long been skeptical of the industry, voted to pass pro-crypto legislation.

• Of the 42 primaries in which crypto-backed super PACs were involved, the cryptocurrency industry won its desired outcomes in 36.

• When House Republicans put crypto-backed legislation to a vote in May that would shift regulatory responsibility from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 71 Democratic House members voted to pass the bill over the objections of the Biden administration. The bill, called the 21st Century Financial Innovation and Technology Act, is widely seen as legitimizing cryptocurrencies if it becomes law.

• Donald Trump, who has previously expressed skepticism about the industry and whose Securities and Exchange Commission has taken tough enforcement actions against alleged cryptocurrency misconduct, has repositioned himself as a pro-crypto presidential candidate. In a speech at a Bitcoin conference in July, Trump vowed to make the United States the “cryptocurrency capital of the world and the Bitcoin superpower of the world” and proposed that the federal government hold a “strategic Bitcoin reserve.”

• Trump’s selection of Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate, who has extensive experience in venture capital and crypto-friendly policies, was seen as another signal of support for cryptocurrencies.

• Meanwhile, Kamala Harris’ advisers have reportedly reached out to cryptocurrency firms in hopes of a “reboot.”

• Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the “Crypto4Harris” virtual fundraiser in August, declaring that “cryptocurrency is here to stay, no matter what. So Congress has to get it right… We all believe in the future of cryptocurrency.” Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) also attended the event.

Just two years ago, during the 2022 midterm elections, FTX CEO (and now convicted felon) Sam Bankman-Fried represented the cryptocurrency industry’s attempt to maximize its political influence using campaign spending. Bankman-Fried publicly donated over $40 million, mostly to support the Democratic Party. After the election, Bankman-Fried claimed that he also spent about the same amount to support the Republican Party, saying in an interview that “all my Republican donations were made in secret,” and estimating that he was probably the “second or third largest” Republican donor this cycle.

Now, both chambers of Congress are evenly divided along partisan lines, meaning the cryptocurrency industry’s outsized influence in a competitive race has the potential to flip control of Congress one way or another.

If cryptocurrency companies succeed in translating their financial power directly into political power, more companies and business sectors may follow the same strategy.

To be fair, crypto didn’t invent the corporate political influence strategy of rewarding candidates who agree to do what the industry wants while threatening those who resist corporate power. But never before has an industry so wholeheartedly embraced raising so much money directly from corporations and openly using political money as an imminent threat (or reward) to discipline lawmakers into adopting industry-preferred policies.

Cryptocurrency industry spokespeople claim to represent a large voting bloc, but such claims have little credibility. Statistics provided by the industry itself exaggerate the number of Americans involved in digital currencies, but a Federal Reserve survey found that only about 7% of Americans will hold or use cryptocurrency by 2023.

Cryptocurrencies do have their enthusiasts. But if the hype has no more impact than a few amateurs collecting digital currencies the way other people collect stamps or baseball cards, there’s no harm in letting crypto enthusiasts have fun.

However, crypto enthusiasts view cryptocurrencies as speculative assets - crypto companies and the crypto media ecosystem encourage this use. But it is worth repeating that unlike commodities, corporate securities, or true "fiat" currencies that are backed by the federal government, crypto has no intrinsic value. Crypto volatility and risk remain extremely high.

As Sam Bankman-Fried’s massive fraud at collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX showed, untrustworthy insiders can abuse consumers and use the cash they paid for their own purposes. It’s perhaps understandable why some tech-curious insiders with money to spend might feel that trying crypto is worth the risk, but pushing everyday investors burdened with student debt and retirement savings into risky digital assets is a disaster waiting to happen.

Furthermore, crypto has been found to be particularly useful to criminal enterprises that use blockchain as an alternative to a regulated financial system where there are sophisticated systems in place to detect tax evasion, money laundering, ransom payments, and more.

Both Coinbase and Ripple are fighting securities fraud charges from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

If there was a broad grassroots constituency that supported a crypto political agenda, one might think Fairshake would tap into it and tout in ads that it was fighting for the interests of its constituents. But Fairshake didn’t do that.

In contrast, when Fairshake and its affiliates spent money to influence campaigns, either by attacking crypto skeptics or in support of crypto, the ads did not mention crypto at all. The super PAC spent $10 million on ads in the California Senate primary against Rep. Katie Porter and $2 million on ads in the New York primary against Rep. Jamaal Bowman. Both campaigns did not criticize the candidates for not being supportive of crypto, but instead used unfavorable rhetoric unrelated to cryptocurrency policy.

Similarly, Fairshake affiliate Defend American Jobs PAC launched a $3 million campaign to interfere in the Republican primary, including an ad supporting Governor Jim Justice's Senate run that did not mention cryptocurrency.

The super PAC recently pledged $25 million to support 18 House candidates (9 Democrats and 9 Republicans) in the general election. Fairshake also announced that it would spend $18 million on three Senate races. Senate race spending includes a $12 million pledge to support Ohio Republican Bernie Moreno, who has been described as a "crypto enthusiast" and "blockchain businessman" against incumbent Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and $3 million to support Arizona Democratic Senate candidate Ruben Gallego and Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Elisa Slotkin. Both Gallego and Slotkin voted against the Biden administration's legislation to transfer cryptocurrency authority from the SEC to the CFTC.

It will be interesting to see whether Fairshake conceals its crypto agenda as it tries to influence voters, even as it makes its policy priorities clear to candidates.

“We will have the resources to influence campaigns and the makeup of institutions at all levels,” said Fairshake spokesman Josh Vlasto, who previously served as chief of staff to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and as a senior aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “We will strategically leverage these assets to maximize their impact to build a sustainable, bipartisan cryptocurrency and blockchain coalition.”

In Ohio, incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) is seeking reelection, and in Montana, incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D) is seeking reelection. Both incumbent Democrats are seen as vulnerable, as they are both running in states that Trump won in his 2020 presidential campaign. Fairshake’s Vlasto told The New York Times in March that the super PAC had not yet decided whether to support or oppose either candidate, even though both senators are considered cryptocurrency skeptics. Fairshake didn’t announce plans to spend against Brown until August — and the group hasn’t announced further plans for Montana after Tester cast his pro-crypto vote.

The super PAC appears to be pursuing a strategy of raising as much political money as possible and using that money itself as an unspecified threat. Fairshake’s lack of a clear political stance means its spending could be used against either Republicans or Democrats. There seems to be an implicit promise that the super PAC will drop out of races where both Democrats and Republicans show a willingness to cater to the crypto giants. The threat of crypto giants in many areas coupled with targeted deployment has changed the dynamics of campaigns and Congress. It’s like a corporate Death Star hanging over elections, ready to eliminate individual candidates in order to instill a discipline in all candidates to acquiesce to corporate demands.

The crypto industry’s strategy seems to be: give crypto companies what they want. Or, as former Coinbase CTO Balaji Srinivasan posted on X (formerly Twitter), “attacking crypto means risking losing your seat at the table.”

The strategy is not without risk, however. Republicans accused Fairshake of betraying Democratic Senate candidates in Arizona and Michigan after Fairshake announced its intentions for bipartisan political spending, while Democratic megadonor Ron Conway severed ties with Fairshake after it announced it would support a Republican Senate candidate in Ohio. “Due to your selfish hidden agenda, it is time for us to part ways,” Conway wrote. “This is a wake-up call for me that I have worked too long with people who do not share my values, and it is unacceptable. … I will no longer be undermining myself by associating or helping.”

Background on the Crypto Giants’ Campaign Strategies

Crypto’s strategy differs from how companies typically influence elections through political donations, and not just in the size of the contributions.

Typically, disclosed corporate political donations go to partisan outside groups, often Republican-affiliated groups (see Table 2). Beyond cryptocurrencies, other corporate donors in 2024 followed this pattern. Republican-supporting groups had a nearly four-to-one advantage in corporate money, with corporations donating $122.9 million to right-leaning groups and $32.6 million to groups supporting Democrats.

Half of all corporate donations to Republican-supporting groups ($69 million) went to just three groups in 2024: the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity Action ($25.9 million), the Senate Leadership Fund ($22.4 million), and the Congressional Leadership Fund ($20.7 million). Similarly, about a third of corporate contributions ($9.6 million) went to groups dedicated to electing Democrats to the Senate and House, respectively: Senate Majority PAC ($5.8 million) and House Majority PAC ($3.8 million).

Coinbase, the largest company in terms of crypto political spending, also donated to partisan PACs in the 2024 cycle. But Coinbase’s strategy of refusing to make a full commitment to any one party was once again notable as the company made four $500,000 donations — one to elect Republicans to the Senate, one to elect Democrats to the Senate, one to elect Republicans to the House of Representatives, and one to elect Democrats to the House of Representatives.

The vast majority of donations from Coinbase and Ripple went to the nonpartisan FairShake Super PAC.

Table 2: The political leanings of the top ten corporate campaign donors and their funding recipients in 2024.

Data source: OpenSecrets.org

When examining corporate donations since 2010, the pattern of corporate donations benefiting partisan groups is even more pronounced, with the exception of cryptocurrencies (see Table 3).

Since 2010, groups supporting Republicans have a four-to-one advantage, with corporations donating $609.1 million to right-leaning groups and $144.6 million to groups supporting Democrats.

More than half of corporate contributions ($310.2 million) went to pro-Republican groups, with those donations going to just four groups: Senate Leadership Fund ($118.9 million), Congressional Leadership Fund ($93.2 million), Americans for Prosperity Action ($59 million), and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads ($39 million). Likewise, about 40 percent of corporate contributions ($60.3 million) went to two groups dedicated to electing Democrats to the Senate and House: Senate Majority PAC ($46.1 million) and House Majority PAC ($14.3 million).

Taking into account all corporate donations since 2010 also highlights the scale of crypto industry spending in 2024. The industry didn’t start interfering in elections until 2020, when Sam Bankman-Fried’s Alameda Research donated $5.2 million to Future Forward, a hybrid PAC supporting the Biden-Harris campaign. Four years later, Coinbase is second only to Koch Industries in spending to influence federal elections.

Table 3: The top ten corporate campaign donors and the political leanings of the recipients since 2010.

Data source: OpenSecrets.org

Cryptocurrency companies’ combined spending of $129 million over the past three election cycles already accounts for 15% of all known corporate contributions since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which totaled $884 million. In terms of corporate money in politics since 2010, cryptocurrency companies are second only to fossil fuel companies, which have spent $162 million over the past 14 years, including $73 million from Koch Industries (see Table 4). But in 2024 alone, cryptocurrency companies have contributed 92% of the record contributions—and they are likely to contribute even more.

Table 4: Top corporate sectors contributing $1 million or more since 2010

Data source: OpenSecrets.org

*Political/personal purpose refers to donations made by corporate entities that appear to be primarily intended to further the interests of their individual owners.

**UnionBank is a union-owned financial institution whose political involvement tends to differ from other financial institutions.

In many cases, corporate contributions appear to be used as an extension of the political activities of their wealthy owners. This is particularly true of privately held entities and limited liability companies. An extreme example is Planeta Management, which was controlled by Nicole Shanahan, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s running mate, and which donated $4 million to American Values ​​2024, a super PAC supporting Kennedy’s presidential campaign. Similarly, Union Bank’s spending in support of the Democratic Party was a manifestation of the bank’s labor ownership. Republicans, however, have benefited greatly from corporate contributions, receiving $609 million since 2010, or 69% of the total (see Table 5).

Table 5: Donations by recipients’ perspective since 2010

Data source: OpenSecrets.org

in conclusion

The threat of heavy spending by cryptocurrency giants looms in 2024, especially in hotly contested races like the Ohio and Montana Senate elections, where incumbent Democrats are defending vulnerable seats that would cost them control of the Senate. The cryptocurrency industry is not the first corporate interest group to seek to distort our democracy by converting its financial power into political power, but the scale of its corporate spending and its strategy of rejecting partisan support are unusual. So far, the strategy is working. Candidates are clamoring to show they’re willing to cater to cryptocurrency companies, and incumbents are backing away from strong policy positions. It’s a clear sign that the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United is a significant factor in the 2024 election—and a threat to our democracy.

Despite cryptocurrency marketing claims that digital assets herald a future financial system that is decentralized, efficient, fair, and more affordable, the Ponzi schemes and wild volatility that characterize the cryptocurrency industry suggest the value of these artificial currency experiments is questionable.

This makes the impact of cryptocurrencies even more dangerous. Crypto-influenced lawmakers working tirelessly to benefit the crypto giants means that protections to protect individual consumers from reckless crypto scams will be weakened, and regulations to protect our financial system from disruptive innovations that exploit consumers while enriching insiders will be relaxed.

There’s another huge danger with this trend: As cryptocurrency companies break with corporate norms about their reluctance to make large donations to influence election outcomes, other companies are likely to follow suit.

We are tired of elected officials turning a blind eye because influential billionaires and big business tell them to. Regulators and lawmakers should be free to carry out their public interest missions without fear of political attack from corporate interests.

The influence of major cryptocurrencies is further evidence that a constitutional amendment is needed to overturn Citizens United — and restore our democracy to one where the people, not corporations, have the final say.