The U.S. crypto industry is backing candidates from both major parties in an effort to shape digital-asset policy in Congress. Political action committee Fairshake’s latest House spending plan covers 32 candidates—19 Republicans and 13 Democrats. Six campaigns have disclosed commitments of $1 million each, while the remaining amounts have not been made public.
For the industry, the strategy is less about betting on which party will control Congress in the long term than about ensuring both parties retain lawmakers open to crypto legislation.
Fairshake targets lawmakers on key committees
The Republican candidates with disclosed $1 million commitments include Representatives French Hill, Bryan Steil and Bill Huizenga. Hill chairs the House Financial Services Committee, Steil leads its digital-assets subcommittee, and Huizenga serves as a vice chair of the committee. Supporting these lawmakers directs industry resources toward members directly involved in financial and digital-asset legislation.
On the Democratic side, Janelle Bynum, Steven Horsford and Derek Tran are also among the candidates receiving $1 million commitments. Their connection with the crypto industry is partly tied to support for the CLARITY Act. The House passed the bill in July 2025 by 294 votes to 134, with 216 Republicans and 78 Democrats voting in favor. Every Republican who voted supported the measure, while Democrats were divided.
Fairshake is a federal independent expenditure committee. It can fund political activity outside a candidate’s campaign but cannot coordinate with a campaign team. As a result, announcing $1 million in support for a candidate does not mean handing that candidate $1 million in cash. Independent expenditures can fund advertising and other activities, reducing the campaign’s need to spend its own budget in those areas and allowing it to direct resources to other election matters.
The industry seeks clearer digital-asset rules
U.S. crypto companies have long pressed Congress to clarify how digital assets are classified, which regulators oversee them, what registration and licensing requirements apply, and when software developers may face legal obligations. The industry argues that uncertain operating costs and compliance boundaries affect how exchanges, token issuers, developers and users structure their activities.
Republicans and Democrats both acknowledge that the legal framework needs further development, but they have not agreed on what the legislation should contain. A bill’s name and broad policy goals do not resolve the practical questions. Those questions depend on its definitions, disclosure requirements, enforcement provisions and other detailed language—provisions that ultimately determine business costs, the scope of licenses and user rights.
The Senate remains divided over ethics provisions tied to the CLARITY Act, a dispute that has slowed the bill’s progress. Even after the House produced bipartisan support, senators still need to reach agreement on issues such as whether public officials may profit from businesses affected by their official decisions. For crypto companies, helping supportive lawmakers enter the legislative process may be relatively straightforward; turning that support into a complete and enforceable law still depends on negotiations over the text.
Bipartisan spending reflects competing interests
With neither party able to guarantee long-term control of Congress, supporting both Republicans and Democrats gives the industry a way to spread its political risk. Crypto companies are focused on how much, and how quickly, a candidate could affect exchange registration, token issuance or digital-asset oversight. Voters, by contrast, typically make decisions based on a broader range of issues, including housing, taxes, immigration and local governance.
The industry’s priorities also do not necessarily represent every participant in the blockchain sector. Large exchanges may seek regulatory arrangements that differ from those sought by individual developers. Token issuers may focus on rules that are different from the concerns of customers seeking clarity on how funds would be handled in a bankruptcy.
Ultimately, user rights will be determined not by campaign advertising or political contributions, but by the legislation Congress passes. That includes decisions over who can obtain operating licenses, whether users have avenues for recourse, and which parties bear the cost of compliance.
Fairshake plans to assess the results of its support after the November elections. For the crypto industry and its users, the more consequential issue will be the regulatory language those lawmakers help draft afterward. Political backing can give companies access to the legislative process, but whether it produces clear and enforceable digital-asset rules will be determined by the bill’s specific text when Congress considers it again.