Why Sherrod Brown Might Beat the Crypto Industry This Time

The pro-crypto PAC Fairshake is dropping $30 million to defeat the former senator. What is this, 2024?

You’re reading The TNR Blue Book. Get daily scoops, strategy, and developments inside the liberal ideas factory delivered right to your inbox. Sign up for free.

Why Sherrod Brown might beat the crypto industry this time

On Monday, the pro-crypto PAC Fairshake confirmed that it would spend $30 million against former Senator Sherrod Brown’s campaign for his old Senate seat in Ohio. Perhaps you are feeling a touch of déjà vu: In 2024, Fairshake spent $40 million against Brown. But experts say that circumstances are different this year, and unlike in 2024, Brown might just be able to survive the influx of crypto money.

“It’s like comparing apples and oranges,” said David Cohen, a professor of political science at the University of Akron, about the difference between Brown’s loss in 2024 and his campaign this year. Two years ago, Brown was on a ballot with then–Vice President Kamala Harris, who struggled in the conservative state. Now Brown is running in a strong environment for Dems nationally. Trump is 20 points underwater in Ohio, gas prices are high, and Brown’s opponent, GOP Senator Jon Husted, doesn’t have a strong profile in the state. “I’m just not sure that any amount of money is going to turn things around for Republicans in Ohio,” Cohen said.

Fairshake, which has more than $120 million on hand and is funded by crypto companies like Coinbase and Ripple, is targeting Brown for a number of reasons. Perhaps most importantly, he served as the chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs during his time in the Senate, and was skeptical of the crypto industry. In 2023, for example, he said that the cryptocurrency industry had “betrayed the public interest.”

Brown also has a strong populist brand and has long been an opponent of wealthy corporate interests. This election cycle, he’s loudly criticized data centers and Husted’s role in promoting them. “This is a union hall Democrat who isn’t easily wowed by the technology world, and I think they see that,” said David Niven, a professor at the University of Cincinnati. “And if he’s not going to fall for their lines, then they’d rather he not be there.”

There’s also the timing of a recent piece of legislation in the Senate. A bill the crypto industry really wanted passed, the Clarity Act, died in the Senate last week after lawmakers across both parties opposed it. But many in the crypto world are eager to blame Democrats for the bill’s failure.

“The ads are in Ohio, but the message is for Washington,” said Henrik Schatzinger, a professor of political science at Ripon College. “I think there is an implicit message here, and the message is: Oppose us, and we can make your next election much more expensive.”

In the past, Fairshake has supported Democrats, such as Senators Elissa Slotkin and Ruben Gallego. The group recently suggested that it will announce more bipartisan spending in the coming days, and isn’t just planning to spend against Brown. Fairshake didn’t respond to The New Republic’s request for more information.

Fairshake’s attack ads probably won’t mention cryptocurrency. “You’d never know that the crypto industry had even gotten involved in 2024 because they were trying to bring up culture war issues” in their ads, said Cohen. “They’re going to try and bring out the greatest hits from 2024,” like immigration and transgender people, he explained.

Asked about Fairshake’s plans, Brown’s campaign manager, Patrick Eisenhauer, on Wednesday responded with a statement doubling down on Brown’s populist message: “Jon Husted’s for sale, and the billionaires and corporations pouring millions into this race know it,” he wrote. “Of course the special interests are panicking, they know Sherrod will fight the rigged system they’re feasting on to stand up for working Ohioans.”

Cohen sees the cash dump as indicative of the strong position Brown has found himself in. “The tsunami is coming,” he said about the potential for major Democratic wins in November. “You’re seeing a lot of desperation on the Republican side because they know it’s coming, and there’s not much they can do to stop it except for throw money at it.”

A new poll released Wednesday by Marist University shows Democrat Gina Hinojosa leading Republican Greg Abbott by three percentage points in the Texas governor’s race—but with a 4.4 percentage-point margin of error. If you missed Hinojosa’s interview with 22-year-old Lajward Zahra in The Nation earlier this week, check it out: It’s a bit of a barn burner. Obviously, all politicians are highly incentivized to make the case that their race is vital. Prodded by Zahra, however—who wanted to draw Hinojosa out on arguments she made in a speech in Houston last month—Hinojosa lays out the math for why Texas’s gubernatorial results could determine the political direction of the country for decades: “Texas controls 10 percent of seats in Congress,” Hinojosa tells Zahra. “Republicans in Austin, in particular, are coming back next year [with the intention] to redraw congressional maps.… When that happens, that’s nine to 10 seats that will be off the table for Democrats in Congress if these same Austin Republicans are in charge.” Without a veto on redistricting from a Democratic governor, Hinojosa says, “I think it’s likely one-party control of Congress, likely for a generation.” Conversely, she says, Democrats have a powerful opportunity in this anti-incumbent climate: “Once Texas is in play, it changes the political calculus in this whole country.” (The same Marist poll that showed the Hinojosa-Abbott contest within the margin of error on Wednesday found James Talarico leading Ken Paxton in the Senate race by six points.)

Speaking of gubernatorial races: Three billionaires account for roughly two-thirds of Republican Tom Tiffany’s campaign cash in the Wisconsin governor’s race, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported Wednesday. Tiffany so far has outraised Democrat David Crowley 11 to one. The two campaigns then exchanged insults over their donor bases in the Journal-Sentinel story, with the Crowley campaign accusing Tiffany of trying to “buy this election” and the Tiffany campaign bringing up LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, a large donor to the broader state Democratic Party with Epstein ties, who does not appear to have given directly to Crowley’s campaign. “Crowley’s largest donors to-date have been political action committees and groups linked to labor, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Wisconsin Laborers’ District Council, and Wisconsin Pipe Trades Association,” Mary Spicuzza and Eva Wen report.

—Heather Souvaine Horn

The Groundwork Collaborative and Reset Tech have released a new report on the “hidden cost” of AI. It’s not just via electrical bills, write authors Rishi Bharwani, Janelle Jones, Lindsay Owens, and Zoe Butler. Other pathways they identify include: online scams, algorithmic pricing, “amplifying the harms of social media,” and higher health care costs due to the use of AI tools in prior authorization review and medical coding.

Data for Progress finds that public disapproval of Flock cameras has grown significantly in the past month. In August, “voters viewed the cameras unfavorably by a 19-point margin. One month later, that deficit has grown to 29 points, with 52% now unfavorable.”

—Heather Souvaine Horn

Here’s Why That’s B.S.

No way was “national security” the real reason Trump banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House. Watch TNR’s Edie Olmsted break this down.

Political Trivia Question of the Day

Which American president established full diplomatic relations with China? (Sign up for The TNR Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)

The New “Hot” Issue: Home Heating Bills Spiking Due to the Iran War

The affordability crisis is likely to accelerate in several key swing states this season.

You’re reading The TNR Blue Book. Get daily scoops, strategy, and developments inside the liberal ideas factory delivered right to your inbox. Sign up for free.

The new “hot” issue: Home heating bills spiking due to the Iran war

As autumn begins and temperatures start to dip across the Northeast, many Americans who rely on heating oil to warm their homes are facing massive price increases due to the war in Iran. Democrats have started talking about utility costs on the campaign trail, and voters facing a cold and expensive winter seem to be listening.

Some of the cycle’s most watched elections are in states where heating oil keeps houses warm in the wintertime: Maine, Alaska, and Pennsylvania. Democratic candidates in these states are already running on the high cost of heating as winter approaches. On Tuesday, the House Majority PAC released an ad slamming Paul LePage, the Republican candidate running against Democrat Matt Dunlap in Maine’s 2nd congressional district. “LePage supports a foreign war that’s sending gas and oil prices in Maine through the roof,” the ad says.

Dunlap hammered that point in a statement to The New Republic, writing that “Mainers are already being forced to choose between heating their homes, buying groceries, and paying for health care.” Meanwhile, he said, “Paul LePage supports the Iran war that’s raising prices and refuses to challenge his party bosses in Washington.”

Maine Senate candidate Troy Jackson’s campaign tied heating oil prices to Senator Susan Collins in a statement to The New Republic: “Susan Collins has spent decades selling out Mainers by supporting an agenda that raises their energy costs, dismantling programs aimed at lowering prices, signing off on Trump’s war that’s jacking up the cost of heating oil as Mainers schedule their tank fill-ups for winter,” said campaign spokesperson Cheyenne Gallivan.

In Alaska, Senate candidate Mary Peltola echoed that sentiment, releasing a statement tying her opponent to the cost of home heating. “A dozen times Dan Sullivan has voted to continue the war in Iran. A dozen times Dan Sullivan has voted to jack up our prices. Sullivan’s fuel price hikes affect everyone—from our smallest fishing boat in the ocean, to families heating their homes through winter,” the statement reads.

Earlier this month, the price of oil topped $100 per barrel for the first time since July, and estimates from the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, or NEADA, project that U.S. households will spend on average nearly 9 percent more than last year—an extra $82—to heat their homes this winter. The figure is even higher for households that rely on heating oil, though; NEADA estimates that households using heating oil could pay $707 more than they did last winter to stay warm.

In New York, the cost of heating oil has shot up 66 percent from last year’s price. Across the Northeast, some homeowners are already making tough decisions about how they plan to heat their homes. Experts stressed that utility costs have already been higher than usual, and the Iran war has only added to that burden.

The increased cost of energy comes as the war in Iran nears its seven-month mark. This week, Senate Democrats are planning to push another vote curbing Trump’s war-making power to the floor, hoping to get Republicans on record in their support for the expensive and devastating conflict. In previous war powers votes, Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Rand Paul of Kentucky have voted with Democrats to oppose the war. Retiring Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina has said that he would support the resolution this time, after voting against it previously.

Aside from trying to halt the war in Iran, some Democrats........

© New Republic