Despite the fallout from SBF's political donations, crypto super PAC Fairshake raised $203M, more than others, like runner-up Koch Industries, which raised $26M
I've always wondered when the tech industry which makes so much money and has so much to lose from poor regulation would start lobbying at scale. … X: Alex Sammon / @alex_sammon : Something truly insane: the crypto lobby, which two years ago was mostly Sam Bankman-Fried doing effective altruism, has now spent more money influencing elections over the 14 year period since Citizens United *than every industry other than fossil fuels.* https://slate.com/...
Context & Ripple Effects
Fairshake’s $203M haul follows an earlier wave in which Coinbase, a16z and other backers put $78M into crypto super PACs ahead of 2024. The scale shows that the sector’s political operation was becoming institutionalized despite the reputational damage tied to Sam Bankman-Fried’s donations.
The fundraise also set up Fairshake’s late-cycle role: days later, the bipartisan group planned to deploy more than $40M after already spending $140M. Later coverage indicates the model persisted, with crypto PACs building a fresh 2026 war chest and Fairshake again its largest component.
First-order effects
- Fairshake gains a financial advantage over other political committees, allowing it to support or oppose candidates at a scale that runner-up Koch Industries could not match in this fundraising comparison.
- Crypto companies and major investors backing the PAC gain a more durable, collective channel for election spending, rather than relying on individual donors associated with the SBF era.
Second-order effects
- Candidates in competitive races have stronger incentives to engage with crypto-policy priorities when a bipartisan outside-spending vehicle can materially affect campaign conditions.
- Other crypto-aligned donors and PACs face pressure to coordinate around Fairshake or raise comparable sums; the group’s subsequent planned late-cycle deployment makes fundraising capacity operational rather than symbolic.
Third-order effects
- If repeat fundraising continues, crypto’s policy influence will be shaped less by prominent individual founders and more by professionalized, multi-donor PAC infrastructure.
- That shift may narrow the sector’s legitimacy gap in electoral politics while intensifying scrutiny of how concentrated industry funding shapes technology regulation; money alone does not determine policy outcomes.
The trend: Crypto is moving from founder-led political giving toward sustained, institutionalized election-finance infrastructure built to influence the regulatory environment.