Will the crypto lobby's $189M campaign get CLARITY over the line?

The $189M Campaign

As the CLARITY Act advances, crypto's growing political influence in Washington is under scrutiny. But the crypto lobby's massive campaign spend is only part of the story.

According to a report from consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, that "political operation" has spent $189 million so far to influence the 2026 midterm elections. Crypto's opponents see the war chest as an illegitimate attempt to buy influence and votes, while the industry argues it's a much-needed corrective to the anti-crypto forces that have dominated politics since 2022.

Colin McLaren, the Solana Policy Institute's head of government relations, told Cointelegraph the industry's political infrastructure did not emerge overnight.

"Fairshake, Cedar Innovation Foundation, Stand With Crypto, and the Blockchain Association built the political infrastructure that's moving pro-crypto legislation forward," he said. "These groups, alongside the advocacy of companies and projects, created and supported allies in Congress, giving them the resources and cover to legislate and lead without fear of electoral reprisal from the anti-crypto army."

Momentum Building for CLARITY

There are signs that momentum to pass the CLARITY Act is building. On July 3, the Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA), a national association representing elected sheriffs from some of the largest counties in the US, announced that it had shifted from opposing the CLARITY Act to a neutral position following discussions over Section 604, also known as the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act.

As Coinbase chief executive Brian Armstrong commented on X, that development is "huge."

Earlier that same day, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) became the first major law enforcement body to endorse the bill.

But the BRCA, which includes protections for developers of decentralized smart contracts, remains a sticking point. Four other attorneys and law enforcement groups representing 70,000 members between them warned the Acting U.S. Attorney General in late June that the bill's "broad exemptions could create gaps in oversight and accountability that sophisticated criminal actors may exploit."

So the race is far from won.

Fairshake's Role

Smith's comments spotlight how closely the industry's political organization has become intertwined with its legislative ambitions. No organization better exemplifies that shift than Fairshake, the crypto-backed political action committee (PAC), funded by companies like Coinbase, Ripple and Andreessen Horowitz.

A PAC is an organization that raises and spends money to support or oppose political candidates and causes, and can pool contributions from multiple donors to fund campaign advertising and other political activity, subject to federal election rules.

Throughout the 2026 US congressional primary election cycle, Fairshake and affiliated PACs have spent tens of millions of dollars supporting candidates in various races who are viewed as favorable to digital assets while opposing others seen as hostile to the sector.

In May, affiliated PACs spent more than $20 million supporting candidates in Republican congressional primaries across Georgia, Alabama and Kentucky, including more than $7 million backing Rep. Andy Barr in Kentucky's Senate primary. The group later expanded its efforts into Democratic contests, spending millions of dollars in Maryland and New York. Several crypto-backed candidates advanced in these states, further reinforcing Fairshake's reputation as the industry's most influential political organization.

McLaren argued that the crypto lobby's willingness to back candidates in competitive races is making a difference.

"Adrian Boafo was polling behind the field in Maryland before the crypto industry's ads ran. He won," he said. "In Houston, the industry backed Christian Menefee, a young upstart challenging a sitting incumbent. He won. The industry supports its champions, even when that means taking risks."

Fairshake spokesperson Geoff Vetter told Cointelegraph that election victories are only one measure of success.

"Our goal is to increase the number of members who understand and are willing to act on these issues in good faith," Vetter told Cointelegraph. "The difference we make will be creating the largest crypto-literate caucus in history, ready to act on responsible regulation."

Measuring Real Influence

But how much of Fairshake's influence stems from election outcomes themselves rather than simply the perception that it can shape them?

In a June 30 analysis published by Brogan Law, journalist Veronica Irwin examined Fairshake's involvement in 40 decided races during the current election cycle, comparing Federal Election Commission filings with polling data and election results. While Fairshake-backed candidates won in 38 of those contests, Irwin's analysis found that many of those races already leaned heavily toward the eventual winner before the PAC entered the picture. Based on her methodology, only 16 races appeared to be genuinely competitive enough for Fairshake's spending to have plausibly adjusted the outcome.

That's still a considerable impact, and Irwin said her goal was never to argue that Fairshake lacked influence, but to show that its strategy is more sophisticated than many observers assume.

"I was reading a lot of stories that were basically just the press release," she told Cointelegraph. "That top-line narrative implies they are just buying up all of the elections outright and having these huge, huge wins. That kind of betrays the more complex strategy underlying it."

Rather than simply trying to swing every race, Irwin said Fairshake has the financial resources to "spray" campaign spending across a much wider range of contests than most PACs could afford.

"They're in this position where they have so much money that they can pursue these costly strategies," she said.

Her analysis raises the nuanced possibility that the organization's greatest political strength may lie not in deciding elections outright, but in cultivating the belief that it can.

Beyond Campaign Spending

Campaign spending alone does not always move legislation through Congress. The CLARITY Act's progress also reflects months of negotiations involving lawmakers, industry groups and outside stakeholders. The MCSA's shift to a neutral position shows that legislation still depends on coalition-building and compromise, particularly when addressing concerns around financial crime, consumer protection and law enforcement.

"It is a combination of factors," Ron Tarter, founder of self-custodial, multi-currency cryptocurrency wallet RockWallet and a former attorney, told Cointelegraph. "Adoption is the foundation… Lobbying translates that adoption into direct policy engagement… and campaign spending is the accelerant."

Irwin also argued that crypto's political influence comes from more than campaign spending alone.

"Crypto occupies this space where it matters a lot to you and me, but to the average voter it isn't a top-five issue," she told Cointelegraph. "That's the sweet spot where lobbying and election influence can really flex their muscles… It's pretty easy for a politician to switch to a more pro-crypto perspective without a lot of downside," she said. "It's this one-two punch between lobbying being really effective and the potential to raise a bunch of money if you side with crypto."

McLaren argued that campaign spending succeeded because it was built on a broader political strategy rather than replacing one.

"Crypto didn't come to Washington because it wanted to," he said. "The industry played defense for years, then decided to meet the threat at the ballot box and build the apparatus to advocate for the clarity needed."