According to filings from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), two affiliated organizations under the crypto-backed political action committee Fairshake spent about $7.2 million this week on buying media ads for political candidates in Georgia, Texas, Alabama, Nebraska, and Kentucky. Multiple states’ primaries are scheduled for May, making crypto legislation a key ballot issue.
Two affiliated organizations, cross-party two-way布局
Fairshake achieves cross-party political influence through two affiliated organizations:
Protect Progress: Supports Democratic candidates. This time it separately supports Jasmine Clark running for Georgia’s 13th congressional district (May 19 primary) and Christian Menefee running for Texas’s 18th district (May 26 runoff). Protect Progress also pledges $1.5 million to oppose Texas incumbent U.S. Representative Al Green’s bid for re-election, calling him “actively hostile to the growing Texas crypto community,” even though Green is Menefee’s opponent in the runoff.
Defend American Jobs: Supports Republican candidates. $5.6 million covers races for federal senate in Georgia’s 1st and 14th districts, Nebraska’s 3rd district, as well as Alabama and Kentucky. Primaries in the above states are also planned for May.
Andy Barr gets the biggest funding: the congressional driving force behind the CLARITY Act
Among all beneficiary candidates, Kentucky candidate and incumbent U.S. Representative Andy Barr received more than $3.5 million in the highest media backing, far exceeding other candidates. During his time in Congress, Barr has repeatedly publicly supported crypto-asset policies and voted in favor of multiple pieces of legislation, including the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act.
It also highlights the core logic of Fairshake’s election strategy: the CLARITY Act—a digital asset market-structure bill—has become a key test case for the midterm elections in mid-2026. The composition of congressional seats will directly determine whether the bill can pass. “I think every member of Congress should take a position on crypto; that’s part of their campaigns and platforms,” said Cody Carbone, CEO of the “Digital Chamber.”
Fairshake’s long-term election playbook
Fairshake key election funding data:
Funds available as of January: $193 million
Total media spending in 2024: over $130 million (supporting or opposing various candidates)
This five-state spending for 2026: about $7.2 million (before early May primaries)
Last week, the U.S. Senate reached a compromise on stablecoin yield rates, which could move the CLARITY Act into the Senate Banking Committee for consideration. The bill must first be approved by the committee before it can be brought to the full Senate for a vote. As of Thursday, the committee had not scheduled an official hearing.
FAQ
Why does Fairshake support both Democratic and Republican candidates?
Fairshake’s selection criteria focus on a candidate’s “position on crypto,” not party affiliation. By backing pro-crypto Democratic candidates through “Protect Progress,” and by backing Republican candidates through “Defend American Jobs,” the goal is to build a sufficient number of pro-crypto lawmakers within both parties to drive regulatory measures such as the CLARITY Act through.
How did the CLARITY Act become a test case for the 2026 midterm elections?
The CLARITY Act is intended to establish a regulatory framework for the U.S. digital asset market, making it the most urgent legislative demand in the crypto industry. The composition of Congress in 2026 to 2027 will directly determine whether the bill can pass, giving this midterm election structural impact on the industry’s future. This is also the fundamental reason Fairshake is willing to invest large sums in election funding.
Does the large-scale election spending by crypto PACs comply with legal requirements?
Under U.S. federal election law, super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for independent media expenditures (but they cannot provide money directly to candidates). Fairshake and its affiliated organizations publicly disclose their spending by filing documents with the FEC, which complies with existing legal requirements; however, the scale and influence of these efforts are still widely debated in the industry and in public discourse.
