If you follow the money in Congress, you might be surprised to find cryptocurrency on the other side.

After several recent wins, the crypto-backed super PAC Fairshake started 2026 with more than $193 million on hand to influence elections across the country. The crypto bros are using their war chest to fund candidates who are willing to work with the industry – and targeting those who are critical of it.

Their first big foray into the 2026 cycle is a pledge to spend $1.5 million against Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, in the primary election March 3. He previously expressed concerns about cryptocurrency.

“They’re going to do whatever they can to maintain their dominance that they have with some members of Congress, but not with me,” Green said in a Facebook video following Fairshake’s investment commitment.

Meanwhile, the crypto super PAC is spending $5 million to support Rep. Barry Moore, R-Alabama, in his run for the U.S. Senate.

“Crypto is not a fad,” Moore said in a December X post. “It is part of our future.”

It’s concerning – albeit fully legal – that Fairshake and other pro-crypto PACs are able to spend millions of dollars on elections across the country. By putting more pro-crypto politicians in Congress, we are running the risk of even less regulation, which could lead to serious economic consequences for the United States.

The problem isn't just with campaign spending. It's with the fact that these companies have a say in messaging. These cryptocurrency interest groups want everyday people to invest their money in a volatile industry, opening them up to the possibility of loss. By taking money from crypto PACs, politicians are closing the door on legislating the market.

Who are crypto PACs influencing?

Cryptocurrency PACs have been influencing elections for years, but it really started ramping up in 2024. All told, Fairshake spent nearly $180 million during the 2024 election cycle. More than a third of all corporate donations during that cycle came from crypto corporations. The cryptocurrency industry mostly got what it wanted, too: Fairshake helped win 53 of the 58 congressional races it poured money into that year.

Fairshake has targeted Democrats who are critical of cryptocurrency. Crypto PACs spent $10 million against former Rep. Katie Porter in her bid to be California’s U.S. senator and a whopping $40 million against former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, who had served as the chair of the Senate Banking Committee, in 2024. But they’ve also supported some Democrats, like Sens. Elissa Slotkin and Ruben Gallego, who each received about $10 million last cycle.

Meanwhile, Fairshake didn’t spend any money against Republicans in the 2024 election cycle. It makes sense when you consider that no one in the GOP can win without pledging allegiance to President Donald Trump, and Trump is a huge crypto supporter. His family has made about $1.4 billion in crypto assets over the past year, according to a Bloomberg analysis.

Needless to say, crypto has become one of the biggest players in our elections. Meanwhile, the average U.S. voter couldn't care less about cryptocurrency. A Gallup poll from 2025 found that only 14% of U.S. adults own crypto, meaning that a very small group is having an outsized influence in our elections.

There's still a lot of uncertainty around cryptocurrency, and there isn't uniform regulation across the country. These crypto PACs are trying to ensure that it stays that way, and they'll fund whoever they can to continue operating business as usual.

Democrats have to face crypto ‒ and regulate it

I’m not saying that Democrats should forgo having an opinion on cryptocurrency. In fact, it’d probably help their stance with young men in the United States, seeing as how polling shows a quarter of men under 50 own crypto assets. It would be good for the party to be educated on cryptocurrency – unfortunately, I don’t think it’s going away any time soon.

If crypto is actually the future, it will need a lot more regulation. It would be smart of Democratic lawmakers to take a position that's less focused on getting rid of crypto or pretending it doesn't exist, and more focused on passing legislation that will stabilize the market. At the very least, they should make a commitment to voters that they won't take money from cryptocurrency super PACs like Fairshake.

And for what it’s worth, Republican lawmakers also need to educate themselves on cryptocurrency’s pros and cons instead of blindly supporting it just because the president does. Surely, the GOP wants to avoid hurting its voters and the U.S. economy, and a cryptocurrency bubble burst is the last thing the party would want.

As voters, it is important for us to understand that our opinions don’t exist in a vacuum. We are the product of everything we intake about a politician and an election. We are susceptible to outside influence from super PACs that do not care about us, and it’s very possible that our politicians will act on the interests of these PACs instead of our own. We must be wary of outside spending and demand transparency about who is propping up our candidates.

Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on Bluesky: @sarapequeno.bsky.social

© USA TODAY