Crypto PACs Spent $168M in 2026: 78 Supported Winners, 13 Freshman Lawmakers, and a Costly Ohio Defeat

Crypto-focused super PACs backed 78 candidates who won seats in Congress during the 2025–2026 election cycle. Only 13 will enter Congress for the first time; most of the winning roster already has a record in Washington. The group includes the author of the House crypto market-regulation bill, five representatives moving to the Senate, and a senator who supported stablecoin legislation but helped stop the broader market bill from advancing.

The newcomers could change the direction of districts whose earlier representatives opposed those measures.

CryptoSlate’s review follows $168 million in reported outside spending by five crypto-focused super PACs across the 2025–2026 cycle. The total includes support for unsuccessful candidates and attacks on opponents.

Ohio alone absorbed $64 million in an effort to elect Jon Husted and defeat Sherrod Brown. Brown won. Those results leave the industry with experienced advocates and prospective allies, alongside expensive defeats and unresolved disagreements.

Understanding what it gained requires looking at the people behind the tally and the decisions they will face on exchanges, stablecoins, and taxes.

Most crypto-backed winners already know Congress

Of the 78 winners, 57 are returning to the same chamber, five are moving from the House to the Senate, and three are former members coming back. The 13 first-time entrants make up about one-sixth of the group. Much of the industry’s successful electoral activity therefore preserved legislators with existing experience and positions.

The spending also reached most of these candidates well before November. Fifty received no supportive general-election spending from the five committees: 47 were backed only in 2026 primaries or runoffs, and three only in 2025 special elections.

Every first-time entrant received support during a primary or runoff. Those payments bought advertising and other election communications.

Under the Federal Election Commission’s definition, independent expenditures advocate a candidate’s election or defeat without coordination with the campaign or party. They are outside spending, rather than donations handed to candidates.

Backing someone in a primary can help determine which member of a party reaches the general election. That gives the committees an opportunity to influence the choices available in November, even when they spend nothing supporting the eventual nominee afterward.

Meet the newcomers

Adrian Boafo and Jasmine Clark received the most support among the 13 first-time entrants: $5 million and $4 million, respectively, all from Protect Progress during their primaries. Together, they accounted for 67% of the $14 million spent supporting this newcomer group.

Their districts also offer a concrete way to assess what might change. Steny Hoyer, whom Boafo succeeds in Maryland’s 5th District, voted against both the House’s CLARITY market-structure bill and the GENIUS stablecoin bill in July 2025.

David Scott, who long represented Clark’s Georgia district, voted against both as well. Boafo arrives with state legislation behind him. He sponsored Maryland’s blockchain and digital-currency task force, established by a law approved in May. Its assignment is to study the technology’s use and regulation, with recommendations due in October 2027.

He also sponsored a separate staking-services bill addressing restrictions and a securities exemption for qualifying services. The retrieved record shows a hearing, rather than enactment. His record gives the industry a reason to engage him on federal rules.

Clark’s documented campaign commitments take a different form. Stand With Crypto’s summary of her December 2025 questionnaire describes support for holding crypto in a personal wallet and for broad stablecoin availability.

The comparison with Scott requires one qualification: Everton Blair filled Scott’s unexpired term after his death and is Clark’s immediate predecessor. Scott’s 2025 votes establish the district’s earlier record on the two bills. They do not establish Blair’s position or guarantee that Clark will vote differently on whatever text comes next. Both Boafo and Clark could change how their districts approach crypto legislation.

Ohio’s $64 million defeat

The largest spending effort in the review ended with the committees’ preferred candidate losing. Defend American Jobs and Digital Freedom Fund reported $40 million supporting Husted and $24 million opposing Brown in Ohio’s Senate election. Brown won.

The combined $64 million accounted for about 38% of the five-PAC total. It was almost as much as the approximately $64 million spent supporting all 78 eventual winners.

The Ohio figure combines support and opposition spending; the winners figure includes support only. Both come from the reconciled five-PAC ledger for the same cycle and cutoff.

The Ohio effort puts the long winners list in perspective: one defeat accounted for an extraordinary share of the money. Brown was also one of seven candidates who won despite opposition spending from these committees.

The incoming Congress will include lawmakers the industry supported and others it spent heavily trying to defeat.

The party split changes in the Senate

The winners divide evenly between the parties: 39 Democrats and 39 Republicans.

Their distribution across the chambers is much less balanced. Seven of the eight Senate winners are Republicans, with Virginia’s Mark Warner the only Democrat in that group.

Democrats’ victory in both chambers changes who will control committees and bring legislation forward. The overall bipartisan tally conceals how heavily the supported Senate roster leans toward the incoming minority.

This is a selected group of election winners, not a count of everyone who favors crypto legislation. CryptoSlate’s earlier report on 241 winners rated favorably by Stand With Crypto used the advocacy group’s assessments, a different measure from documented spending by these five PACs.

Neither tally includes every senator who will serve next year, since many were not up for election.

Three allies, three different roles

French Hill’s reelection preserves an author of legislation the industry wants passed. The Arkansas Republican sponsored the House CLARITY Act, which would divide oversight of digital-asset markets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

He voted for that bill and GENIUS in July 2025, while Defend American Jobs and Fairshake reported a combined $1 million supporting him across the primary and general election.

Hill helped move CLARITY through the House on a 294–134 vote. He returns with that experience, although Democratic control will change the leadership of the Financial Services Committee he currently chairs. His next role and the compromises he will support remain to be determined.

Andy Barr brings a similar House voting record into a different chamber. The Kentucky Republican won a Senate seat after $8 million in supportive primary spending from Defend American Jobs and Fellowship. He voted for both House bills and chaired the Financial Institutions subcommittee in the outgoing Congress. His move gives the Senate a lawmaker who has already voted for a crypto market framework.

Warner demonstrates how far positions can diverge within the industry’s own winners list. Fellowship reported $150,000 supporting his primary campaign. He voted for GENIUS in June 2025, then voted against advancing CLARITY in September 2026. In his explanation of that vote, Warner said the proposal lacked adequate restrictions on the president and senior officials profiting from crypto. He supported a federal regulatory framework while withholding support from legislation he considered deficient on ethics.

The September 15 vote was on cloture on the motion to proceed, a procedural step toward considering the bill. It failed 49–50. Warner’s vote therefore records opposition to advancing that proposal at that stage, rather than rejection of every possible market-regulation bill. His position gives the industry a specific negotiating problem.

Agreement on stablecoins and a broader desire for federal rules can coexist with a demand for restrictions the bill’s supporters have not accepted. Winning his seat again does nothing by itself to resolve that disagreement.

What changes for crypto users

The legislation these lawmakers write, amend, and oversee could affect how an exchange handles your assets, how you redeem a stablecoin, and what you must calculate when filing taxes. Each area is at a different stage.

Exchange rules remain a legislative negotiation. The House CLARITY proposal would establish a federal framework for digital-commodity trading, including registration and customer-protection obligations.

The allocation of authority between regulators determines which rules a platform must follow and who enforces them. Hill has helped write that framework, Barr has voted for its House version, and Warner has identified conditions for advancing it in the Senate.

If the current Congress leaves the bill unfinished, it will need to be reintroduced in the next one. The election preserves experienced participants in that work, while leaving the actual agreement unresolved.

Stablecoin safeguards are moving into implementation. GENIUS became law in July 2025. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency finalized its implementing rule in October, with the law and that rule due to take effect on January 18, 2027.

Its reserve and redemption requirements concern the assets backing stablecoins and the process for getting dollars back. Other regulatory work continues: the Federal Reserve’s September package contains proposals. Returning lawmakers will oversee implementation and may seek changes to the statute, so a vote for GENIUS does not settle every subsequent decision about issuers and their customers.

Tax relief has a supported lawmaker behind it, but remains a proposal. Steven Horsford received $1 million in general-election support from Fairshake and voted for both House crypto bills. The Nevada Democrat also joined the original sponsors of a digital-asset tax package that advanced through Ways and Means by 38–5 in September.

The introduced text of H.R.10357 includes simplified treatment of qualifying dollar stablecoins and a gain-and-loss exclusion for digital assets used to pay eligible network or transaction fees totaling $10 or less per underlying transaction. Someone paying such a fee with a token can currently have a disposal to account for, requiring its acquisition cost and value when spent. The proposal aims to remove that calculation for qualifying fees, rather than create a general exemption for small crypto purchases.

The package also pairs simpler accounting options with restrictions on claiming losses after selling and rapidly repurchasing substantially identical assets. The committee advanced a substitute, and the measure has not become law. Existing IRS obligations continue to apply.

Crypto’s winning roster preserves lawmakers who have written bills and adds candidates with positions voters can now follow in office. Its political influence will become more tangible when those people decide which customer protections, tax provisions, and limits on officials’ financial interests they are willing to put into law.

Explore the 78 crypto-backed winners

The directory groups the review’s reported or projected winners by congressional experience. Each entry gives the incoming seat, party, and supportive outside spending from the five PACs, rounded to the nearest dollar. Group headings supply congressional status. D means Democrat and R means Republican. Spending is cumulative across qualifying stages and committees; it is not a campaign donation or a payment for the November victory. Names link to official congressional, state or local government pages, or FEC candidate records. Links identify the individuals; they do not certify the election results or confirm future committee assignments.

First-time entrants (13)

Moving from the House to the Senate (5)

Former members returning (3)

Returning to the same chamber (57)

Methodology and sources

The review covers the Fairshake network’s three super PACs, Fairshake, Defend American Jobs, and Protect Progress, alongside the separate Digital Freedom Fund and Fellowship PAC. It counts each person once after matching documented supportive independent expenditures to a reported or projected congressional victory. Candidates whose only connection was spending against an opponent do not enter the supported-winner count. Members who entered Congress through earlier special elections are treated as incumbents, including Christian Menefee, Clay Fuller, and Aisha Wahab.

The $168,134,698.98 spending total covers the 2025–2026 cycle through filings available at November 10, 2026, 08:37:56 UTC. Original periodic FEC reports through October 14 were reconciled with later notices and their amendments, excluding duplicate expenditure records. The total includes spending on unsuccessful candidates and opposition campaigns, as well as some estimated or unpaid amounts in late notices. It measures paid or reported election activity, not cash handed to campaigns.

Chart by CryptoSlate

Source records include the pre-general filings for Defend American Jobs, Protect Progress, Fairshake, Digital Freedom Fund, and Fellowship, together with earlier reports and subsequent notices recorded in the accompanying research workbook. The chart presents reconciled cycle totals, rather than the amounts from those five individual reports alone. Transfers between committees and fundraising announcements are excluded.

The total includes $270,751.14 with conflicting support/opposition classifications, counted once as spending but excluded from the supported-winner calculation. First Principles Digital, a hybrid PAC, is tracked separately, as is a $13,308 unpaid memo item. Supportive spending behind the 78 winners totals $64,444,806.61. Ohio’s combined support-and-opposition total is $64,049,743.71.

The roster is a provisional snapshot of results verified for this review, with certification unverified. Nick Begich, David Rouzer, and Pat Harrigan remain outside the 78 because their outcomes were unresolved in the audit’s selected result sources. Subsequent checks found conflicting treatment of Harrigan, including local reports of victory and trackers retaining an uncalled status. Blake Miguez faces a December 12 runoff. The roster should not be treated as a final count of every supported candidate who will win.

Source link