Crypto Groups Spend $63M to Influence Ohio Senate Race

Berkeley Law lecturer Hermine Wong argues that loyalty to crypto technology does not require voters to support the large intermediaries financing crypto politics. Ohio votes tomorrow in a non-presidential race with advertising spending above $500 million, one of only three such races ever and the second this cycle after Texas. Crypto super PACs have directed $63 million toward keeping Sherrod Brown out of the Senate. The Fairshake network accounts for $56 million of that spending, while the Winklevoss twins' Digital Freedom Fund accounts for $7 million. Fairshake's spokesperson says the organization remains focused on issues and supports candidates in both parties who favor crypto and American innovation.

Brown lost Brown's Senate seat in 2024 and has cast no congressional votes on crypto during the 119th Congress. Fairshake announced the network's largest funding commitment against Brown days after Senate Democrats blocked the Clarity Act, although Brown did not participate in that vote. After the 2024 election, Fairshake's spokesman called Brown a leading cryptocurrency opponent and credited Fairshake with helping remove Brown from the Senate. Brown previously chaired the Senate Banking Committee and could have brought the House-passed FIT21 bill to a committee vote, but Brown did not do so. Wong accepts scrutiny of Brown's record but questions whether Brown's inaction in 2024 and subsequent absence from Congress justify Fairshake's largest congressional expenditure in 2026.

Republicans have controlled the House, Senate and White House for the past two years, after industry figures celebrated the 2024 election as producing a Congress favorable to crypto. Wong writes that the industry's unprecedented political spending created expectations for market-structure legislation that would reduce dependence on whoever leads the SEC or CFTC. The Clarity Act failed to advance through cloture, which required 60 votes and therefore Democratic support. Wong contrasts that failure with the Laken Riley Act, HALT Fentanyl Act and 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which cleared cloture and became law. The Laken Riley Act requires detention of certain noncitizens charged with crimes, including shoplifting, without requiring a conviction. Wong argues that the Republican majority bears responsibility for negotiating a coalition and that spending based on performance would target Republicans who failed to deliver legislation.

Fairshake has previously cited the Stand with Crypto scorecard when asked about inconsistencies in Fairshake's funding decisions. Stand with Crypto, an advocacy group launched by Coinbase, gives F grades to 29 sitting senators in 2026. Four of those senators face re-election: Chris Coons of Delaware, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Jack Reed of Rhode Island. All four opposed invoking cloture on the Clarity Act, but Fairshake is spending $0 against those senators. Brown is among 11 candidates graded F in the scorecard's category for other political figures, and Fairshake is spending $0 against the other 10 in the general election. Fairshake's next-largest general-election expenditure is $13.5 million against Dan Osborn in Nebraska. Stand with Crypto gives Osborn a B based on one supportive statement from 2024 about crypto's contribution to innovation, economic growth and employment.

Coinbase, a16z and Ripple provided more than 80% of Fairshake's funding in 2024. Wong argues that candidate grades do not explain the Brown and Osborn spending decisions and that Fairshake uses the label "pro-crypto" to justify decisions made privately. Wong criticizes Stand with Crypto for lacking a public scoring methodology and consistent standards, citing Senator Mark Kelly's D despite Kelly's votes to overturn SAB 121 and support the GENIUS Act. The League of Conservation Voters has issued a scorecard since 1970 and publicly explains the methodology, scoring, weighting and membership of the committees making scoring decisions. The ACLU's scorecard identifies whether lawmakers' votes match the ACLU's positions rather than broadly judging lawmakers' commitment to liberty. Wong argues that Fairshake and Stand with Crypto ask the community for trust without providing verification, contrary to crypto's principle of "Don't trust. Verify."

Wong argues that Democrats have failed to develop a crypto policy centered on the technology's peer-to-peer innovation. Wong characterizes Democrats' approach under Biden as predominantly enforcement and rhetoric linking crypto to terrorism, and the approach under Trump as focused on ethics concerns involving Trump. Wong considers those concerns legitimate but argues that neither approach constitutes an agenda for the technology. Wong argues that this policy gap allows Fairshake and Stand with Crypto to present themselves as representatives of the crypto community.

Wong describes the largest crypto intermediaries as businesses whose money finances both political advertising and the scorecard. Wong argues that the industry's message threatens politicians with extraordinarily expensive elections rather than seeking to educate or persuade politicians. Wong portrays Brown as the 2026 target and other politicians as the intended audience for that warning. Wong argues that this strategy works only when political spending produces actual votes. Wong concludes that the companies invoke the community's identity but still depend on individual voters, whose ballots the companies cannot cast.