The 2024 US election cycle showed how crypto has turned out to be a practically perfect special interest group for an era of unlimited corporate spending
Boosted By Trump's Win Bloomberg : Crypto's $135 Million Campaign Is Undefeated in 48 Races So Far Andrew Singer / Cointelegraph : A new Trump administration may boost crypto, but the devil is in the details Ronaldo Marquez / Bitcoinist.com : Crypto's $135M Investment Pays Off: 48 Candidates Backed By PACs Win Nov. 5 Elections Ben Schiller / UnHerd : Welcome to the Bitcoin presidency Has Crypto's moment come? The Capital : Trump Win: Will It Change This Bull Run? Gino Matos / CryptoSlate : Majority of candidates backed by pro-crypto PACs won the elections Hannah Lang / Reuters : US congressional races where crypto is hoping for big payoffs Mastodon: Dare Obasanjo / @carnage4life@mas.to : I've always thought that the tech industry has been reluctant to use its financial power to bend regulation in its favor compared to most other industries (e.g. oil companies, defence contractors, banks, etc). — Crypto has changed that as we now have VCs and starrups spending millions to oust anyone threatening to regulate the industry. … X: Tak / @nonfungibletak : Great article, I really enjoyed the read and didn't realize Brian Armstrong is shouting out for all the lobbying. That's pretty cool @ZekeFaux https://www.bloomberg.com/... James Wester / @jameswester : Imagine writing this in 2024 while the entire cross border payment infrastructure is being rewired with stables. “(T)he only use for crypto that's found widespread appeal is trading on exchanges—in other words, using real money to gamble on the prices of made-up coins.” @prosmoon : Interesting to see how crypto support in US became so political with Trump coming out as the “pro-crypto” election candidate. In the UK digital assets space is not as contentious- waiting to see how things will look in the US where crypto ETFs are already accessible to retail. @thetiniestvoice : And so begins The Golden Age of the Art of the Scam https://www.bloomberg.com/... [image] James Tsetsekas / @jamestsetsekas : Yeah, that's me hes talking about, It was a pleasure to orange pill a Bloomberg reporter for hours on end. https://www.bloomberg.com/... [image] Luke Goldstein / @lukewgoldstein : Other than Warren coasting to re-election, crypto is putting up Saddam Hussein numbers this election Brian Merchant / @bcmerchant : Almost as bleak as Trump's victory, to be honest. The owners of digital casinos were able to bend races around the nation to their will with he sheer force of capital. (They often did not mention crypto at all in their attack ads.) Jacob Silverman / @silvermanjacob : For some reason the Bloomberg article doesn't mention crypto lawyer John Deaton, who lost his race to Elizabeth Warren. Anyway, big day for real and fake money. @business : The crypto industry spent more than $100 million this election cycle to back over 50 candidates. So far, they've all won https://www.bloomberg.com/... Zach Rynes / @chainlinkgod : The crypto industry spend $135 million in the 2024 U.S. election, and got 48 out of 48 backed candidates elected A true turning point for the industry, politicians and regulators can no longer blindly bully crypto companies around without consequence Don't hate the player, hate [image] Jacob Silverman / @silvermanjacob : Every single crypto industry-backed candidate won their race. https://www.bloomberg.com/...
Context & Ripple Effects
Crypto political spending was already unusually concentrated before Election Day: industry spending had surpassed $119 million through the second quarter, according to related coverage. The election results turned that spending into a visible measure of the sector's ability to organize around policy exposure.
Related coverage also counted a House and Senate cohort described as pro-crypto, while later reporting tracked renewed, larger midterm spending. That sequence makes this a marker of crypto's shift from a policy target to a sustained electoral participant.
First-order effects
- Crypto-backed PACs can point to 48 winning candidates as evidence that targeted electoral spending can help build access with incoming officeholders.
- Politicians identified with tougher crypto regulation face a better-funded industry opponent; the failed challenge to Elizabeth Warren also shows that spending did not determine every contest.
Second-order effects
- Crypto companies and their investors gain a stronger incentive to fund PACs and lobbying together, rather than treating regulatory advocacy as separate from elections.
- Candidates and party committees may increasingly treat crypto's policy preferences as a financed electoral issue, raising the cost of taking positions the industry opposes.
Third-order effects
- If repeated, the model could make campaign-finance capacity a durable part of how crypto seeks to close its political legitimacy gap, shifting policy debates toward electoral coalition-building as well as rulemaking.
- The relevant test is whether this funding produces durable legislative or regulatory outcomes; election wins alone do not establish that result.
The trend: Crypto is becoming a permanent political-finance constituency, using concentrated capital and policy alignment to pursue influence in U.S. elections.