
Why crypto matters in the midterms
Editor's note: Morning Money is a free version of POLITICO Pro Financial Services morning newsletter, which is delivered to our subscribers each morning at 5:15 a.m. The POLITICO Pro platform combines the news you need with tools you can use to take action on the day's biggest stories. Act on the news with POLITICO Pro.
Quick Fix
An esoteric financial regulatory issue has suddenly become an urgent consideration for lawmakers facing competitive races in the 2026 midterm elections.
Super PAC money amassed by cryptocurrency companies that are lobbying for legislation aimed at making digital assets mainstream is threatening to shake up congressional races across the country and inject sensitive political considerations into Capitol Hill's crypto policy debate.
The peril posed by the campaign cash helped deliver digital asset companies a pair of big wins last week when a larger-than-expected bloc of Democrats sided with Republicans on the House floor to help advance legislation that would legitimize digital assets. One bill creating new rules for so-called stablecoins is now law, but the campaign money is still looming large over Capitol Hill as lawmakers consider a second, broader market structure measure that is pending in the Senate.
'They make oil look like salad oil when it comes to the amount of money they spend,' said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a leading critic of the crypto sector who could become a target of the industry's campaign spending next year. 'They're the biggest by far.'
The campaign finance strategy illustrates how crypto firms have brazenly used political spending to ascend as a major force in Washington, where regulators and lawmakers alike are embracing digital assets more than ever before.
The crypto funds are primarily wielded by a super PAC network known as Fairshake, which said prior to the House votes last week that it will enter the midterms with more than $140 million in the bank. The group — which includes three affiliated super PACs — emerged as a major force in the 2024 elections, when it spent more than $130 million supporting industry allies and taking down critics in congressional races across the country.
Republicans are almost uniformly on board with the industry's legislative agenda, so the money now looms especially large for Democrats, who are split over the issue. Dozens of Democrats benefited from crypto PAC spending last year, but the industry also went after members of the party who were seen as roadblocks to the industry's agenda. The group spent more than $40 million to help defeat former Senate Banking Chair Sherrod Brown, a key crypto critic who lost his Ohio re-election campaign to Republican Bernie Moreno — a crypto enthusiast.
Lawmakers who are facing competitive 2026 re-election campaigns or seeking higher office now have to weigh the possibility that the replenished PAC war chest could be wielded against them if they oppose the industry's goals — or in support of their campaigns if they get on board.
Seventy-eight Democrats voted last week for a crypto market structure proposal that Fairshake and its affiliates have signaled will be their primary consideration when they deploy their 2026 haul. A similar measure passed in the House last year got 71 Democratic votes. The Democratic 'yes' votes on the bill included many so-called front-liners who represent competitive districts — a sign that the super PACs are already having an impact.
The sweeping proposal, known as the CLARITY Act, is the top priority for most crypto firms — including Fairshake's leading donors: the venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz and the digital asset firms Coinbase and Ripple.
The rising influence of crypto companies is a major concern for industry skeptics and consumer watchdogs who warn that the industry's super PAC spending and lobbying have warped the policy debate. After the House votes last week, Bartlett Naylor, a financial policy advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen, accused lawmakers of piling 'venality onto perversion onto corruption' and surrendering to an 'onslaught of crypto political spending.'
A spokesperson for Fairshake, Josh Vlasto, said the 'progress we are seeing reflects a growing understanding of the need for clear rules to protect consumers and unlock American enterprise.' Crypto executives have attributed recent successes to grassroots support from their users.
Rep. Warren Davidson, an Ohio Republican who was one of the crypto industry's earliest allies in Congress, said the sector was 'slow to recognize the role that that plays in shaping policy and what members of the House and Senate pay attention to.'
'To get something across the finish line, I think they realized, hey, you're going to have to spend money because the people that have been blocking them have spent a lot of money for a long time,' he said.
It's TUESDAY — Send Capitol Hill tips to jgoodman@politico.com. As always, send MM tips and pitches to Sam at ssutton@politico.com.
Driving the day
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman speak at the Integrated Review of the Capital Framework for Large Banks Conference, which kicks off at 8:30 a.m. … World Bank President Ajay Banga speaks at the Center for Global Development's conference on development economies at 9:10 a.m. … Senate Finance Committee meets at 9:45 a.m. to mark up the nominations of Joseph Barloon to be a deputy U.S. Trade Representative in the Geneva Office and Brian Morrissey Jr. to be general counsel at Treasury … The Securities and Exchange Commission holds a meeting of the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee at 10 a.m. … Senate Finance holds a hearing on the nominations of Jonathan McKernan to be Treasury undersecretary and Alex Adams to be assistant Health and Human Services secretary for family support …
Powell latest — The White House continued to signal Monday that President Donald Trump won't seek to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. But that doesn't mean the central bank chief's problems are going away.
—Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday called on the Federal Reserve to do an institution-wide review of whether it is achieving its mission, Victoria Guida reports. 'What we need to do is examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful,' Bessent said on CNBC.
—On Capitol Hill, Victoria and Jordain Carney write that Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the Fed should remain politically independent but called for oversight of the central bank's expensive headquarter renovations.
Thune told reporters he didn't know whether Powell could be fired over his management of the building upgrades, where costs have ballooned to $2.5 billion, but said when it comes to interest rates, the Fed is historically shielded from politics.
—Meanwhile, the Fed 'took additional steps to defend the renovations underway at its headquarters in Washington,' Colby Smith writes in the NYT: 'The central bank published a virtual tour of the active construction site on Monday, including footage of asbestos caulking being removed and blast resistant windows being installed. The Fed, which has said it has scaled back its initial plans, highlighted changes made to a 2021 proposal submitted to a little-known planning board.'
On Wall Street
'Not innovation' — GOP megadonor Ken Griffin's trading powerhouse, Citadel Securities, is firing a shot across the bow at cryptocurrency firms that want Wall Street regulators to let them trade blockchain-based versions of U.S. stocks without fretting about all the rules that govern stock trading today, Declan Harty reports.
In a letter, Citadel Securities pressed the SEC on Monday to treat tokenized U.S. stocks 'in the same manner' as traditional stocks — the latest warning from a traditional financial giant about the crypto-led push.
'Simply put, while we strongly support technological innovations designed to address market inefficiencies, seeking to exploit regulatory arbitrage for 'look-a-like' securities is not innovation,' wrote Stephen Berger, global head of government and regulatory policy for Citadel Securities.
At the regulators
New PCAOB chief — The SEC on Monday named Public Company Accounting Oversight Board member George Botic to lead the audit watchdog on an acting basis, Declan reports.
Botic, a certified public accountant, will succeed PCAOB Chair Erica Williams after she officially steps down Tuesday. Williams said last week that she would leave after SEC Chair Paul Atkins asked for her resignation, citing a desire to go in a new direction.
On the Hill
House passes financial services bills — The House passed a slew of bipartisan bills on Monday that are aimed at expanding investor access to private markets, increasing monitoring of foreign countries regarding U.S. financial services and tailoring SEC rules, Katherine Hapgood writes.
Financial services funding plan advances — House Republican appropriators voted Monday evening to advance their fiscal 2026 funding bill for the Treasury Department, the Judiciary and the IRS, as well as federal support for Washington, D.C. The Financial Services subcommittee approved the measure in a 9-6 vote, sending it to the full committee for action, Katherine Tully-McManus and Jennifer Scholtes report. The bill proposes $23.3 billion, an 8 percent decrease to current funding, with the Treasury Department facing a steep cut of 20 percent.
Not today — The Senate Agriculture Committee canceled a Monday vote to advance Brian Quintenz's nomination to be President Donald Trump's Commodity Futures Trading Commission chair, Declan reports.
GOP megabill's final score — Over the next decade, the GOP megabill Trump signed on July 4 would increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion and cause 10 million people to lose health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office forecasted Monday, per Jennifer Scholtes, Robert King and Benjamin Guggenheim. While the newly enacted legislation would save more than $1 trillion by cutting federal spending on health care — with the majority coming from Medicaid — CBO predicts that the package's costs will far outweigh its savings.
Jobs report
The Bank Policy Institute has hired Evan Sekeris and Daniel Grodzicki as senior vice president and senior economists for their research team. The bank group has also hired Laurence (Laurie) Bristow as a vice president and research associate.
Loughlin Cleary has rejoined the Independent Community Bankers of America as EVP for member relations. He most recently was president and national sales director for Lenders Cooperative.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
GOP lawmakers, including Sen. Mike Lee, renew threats to take over D.C. after DOGE staffer assault
Republican lawmakers are pushing President Donald Trump to take control of Washington, D.C., reiterating previous threats to federalize the nation's capital after a prominent ex-member of the Department of Government Efficiency was assaulted by teenagers over the weekend. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, posted to social media several times Tuesday evening pressing for the passage of his BOWSER Act, a bill to repeal local control over Washington, D.C., and place it under federal jurisdiction. The bill, named after Mayor Muriel Bowser, would overturn what is known as the D.C. Home Rule Act, which allows the city to operate as a self-governing entity. 'This attack on a young man who came to Washington to help fix America's government is simply the latest outrage in a series assaults and murders that have made our nation's capital a national embarrassment,' Lee told the Deseret News in a statement. 'We should pass my BOWSER Act, which revokes DC Home Rule, as well as bills preventing the DC Council from avoiding accountability through secret meetings. I will be working with my GOP colleagues and President Trump on every avenue possible to restore a safe, clean Washington Americans can be proud of.' Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., who leads the BOWSER Act in the House, similarly pushed for the bill's passage, telling the Deseret News he texted Trump on Tuesday evening about the legislation. Ogles said he also contacted House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to remind him of his legislation, noting a vote on the matter 'needs to happen.' Trump in recent days has already reupped his threats to seize control of the district, citing the most recent attack of a government worker as evidence the city is 'totally out of control.' The recent threats come after Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old famously known as 'Big Balls' online who became one of the most high-profile DOGE staffers earlier this year, was attacked by a group of 10 juveniles over the weekend, according to a D.C. police report obtained by the Deseret News. Coristine was attacked during an attempted carjacking after he pushed his significant other into the car to protect her from the group. Police officers who observed the attack attempted to chase the juveniles and managed to arrest two 15-year-old suspects, both of whom reside in Maryland, according to police. Trump posted about the attack on Tuesday, sharing a photo that showed a bloodied Corstine lying in the street, seemingly after the attack. The president decried the incident and called for a change in city law to charge minors as adults in cases of assault. Trump claimed the teenagers are unafraid of law enforcement because 'they know nothing ever happens to them.' 'The Law in D.C. must be changed to prosecute these 'minors' as adults, and lock them up for a long time, starting at age 14,' Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. 'If D.C. doesn't get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they're not going to get away with it anymore.' The latest threats highlight an ongoing challenge for D.C. officials, who have been working for months to crack down on rising rates of youth crime. Since the beginning of 2025, juveniles have made up more than 50% of arrests related to carjacking, according to D.C. police. A majority of those arrests are made up of teens who are 15 and 16 years old. Bowser has acknowledged the recent trends, even going so far as to create a special police unit in April tasked with responding to juvenile crime. It's not clear whether GOP leaders in Congress will prioritize efforts to pass legislation cracking down on D.C. autonomy. The Deseret News contacted the offices of both Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., for comment.

an hour ago
Federal judge refuses to block Alabama law banning DEI initiatives in public schools
A federal judge on Wednesday declined a request to block an Alabama law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools and the teaching of what Republican lawmakers dubbed 'divisive concepts' related to race and gender. U.S. District Judge David Proctor wrote that University of Alabama students and professors who filed a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional did not meet the legal burden required for a preliminary injunction, which he called 'an extraordinary and drastic remedy.' The civil lawsuit challenging the statute will go forward, but the law will remain in place while it does. The Alabama measure, which took effect Oct. 1, is part of a wave of proposals from Republican lawmakers across the country taking aim at DEI programs on college campuses. The Alabama law prohibits public schools from funding or sponsoring any DEI program. It also prohibits schools from requiring students to assent to eight 'divisive concepts' including that fault, blame or bias should be assigned to a race or sex or that any person should acknowledge a sense of guilt, complicity or a need to apologize because of their race, sex or national origin. Six professors and students at the University of Alabama filed a lawsuit arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on what educators teach. The lawsuit also said the law unconstitutionally targets Black students because it limits programs that benefit them. Professors said they had altered what they taught in their classes in the wake of the law and the university's guidance about it. A professor said he reduced coverage of the Black Power movement, the Black Lives Matter movement and the white nationalist movement in the wake of the law. Another said five students had made complaints suggesting that the interdisciplinary honors program she administered had potential conflicts with the new legislation. The university also shuttered designated spaces for the Black Student Union and a resource center for LGBTQ+ students in the wake of the law. Proctor wrote that a professor's academic freedom does not override a university's decisions about the content of classroom instruction. 'Importantly, SB 129 does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus or, for that matter, even from the classroom," Proctor wrote. 'To the contrary, it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.' He added that the law appears to give notice about what is a violation. For example, he said a professor could not 'indoctrinate' students to believe that racial health disparities were the fault of one race of people but could still discuss the role of racism in health disparities. 'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' Proctor wrote. Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan First Amendment group, criticized the decision as dangerous and at odds with decades of Supreme Court precedent on academic freedom. 'Academic freedom protects the search for knowledge and truth from political pressure. That's the whole point," Creeley wrote in a statement. 'Faculty are hired to share and hone their expertise in a given field of study, not to read from a government script.'


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday could be a decisive moment for both the war in Ukraine and the U.S. leader's anomalous relationship with his Russian counterpart. Trump has long boasted that he's gotten along well with Putin and spoken admiringly of him, even praising him as 'pretty smart' for invading Ukraine. But in recent months, he's expressed frustrations with Putin and threatened more sanctions on his country. At the same time, Trump has offered conflicting messages about his expectations for the summit. He has called it 'really a feel-out meeting' to gauge Putin's openness to a ceasefire but also warned of 'very severe consequences' if Putin doesn't agree to end the war. For Putin, Friday's meeting is a chance to repair his relationship with Trump and unlace the West's isolation of his country following its invasion of Ukraine 3 1/2 years ago. He's been open about his desire to rebuild U.S.-Russia relations now that Trump is back in the White House. The White House has dismissed any suggestion that Trump's agreeing to sit down with Putin is a win for the Russian leader. But critics have suggested that the meeting gives Putin an opportunity to get in Trump's ear to the detriment of Ukraine, whose leader was excluded from the summit. 'I think this is a colossal mistake. You don't need to invite Putin onto U.S. soil to hear what we already know he wants," said Ian Kelly, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a longtime Russia hawk and close ally of Trump's, expressed optimism for the summit. 'I have every confidence in the world that the President is going to go to meet Putin from a position of strength, that he's going to look out for Europe and Ukrainian needs to end this war honorably,' Graham wrote on social media. A look back at the ups and downs of Trump and Putin's relationship: Russia questions during the 2016 campaign Months before he was first elected president, Trump cast doubt on findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian government hackers had stolen emails from Democrats, including his opponent Hillary Clinton, and released them in an effort to hurt her campaign and boost Trump's. In one 2016 appearance, he shockingly called on Russian hackers to find emails that Clinton had reportedly deleted. 'Russia, if you're listening,' Trump said, 'I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.' Questions about his connections to Russia dogged much of his first term, touching off investigations by the Justice Department and Congress and leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, who secured multiple convictions against Trump aides and allies but did not establish proof of a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. These days, Trump describes the Russia investigation as an affinity he and Putin shared. 'Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,' Trump said earlier this year. 'He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, ever hear of that deal?' Putin in 2019 mocked the investigation and its ultimate findings, saying, "A mountain gave birth to a mouse.' 'He just said it's not Russia' Trump met with Putin six times during his first term, including a 2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump stunned the world by appearing to side with an American adversary on the question of whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. 'I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said. 'He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be." Facing intense blowback, Trump tried to walk back the comment a full 24 hours later. But he raised doubt on that reversal by saying other countries could have also interfered. Putin referred to Helsinki summit as 'the beginning of the path' back from Western efforts to isolate Russia. He also made clear that he had wanted Trump to win in 2016. 'Yes, I wanted him to win because he spoke of normalization of Russian-U.S. ties,' Putin said. 'Isn't it natural to feel sympathy to a person who wanted to develop relations with our country?" Trump calls Putin 'pretty smart' after invasion of Ukraine The two leaders kept up their friendly relationship after Trump left the White House under protest in 2021. After Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Trump described the Russian leader in positive terms. 'I mean, he's taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I'd say that's pretty smart,' Trump said at his Mar-a-Lago resort. In a radio interview that week, he suggested that Putin was going into Ukraine to 'be a peacekeeper.' Trump repeatedly said the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been in the White House — a claim Putin endorsed while lending his support to Trump's false claims of election fraud. 'I couldn't disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn't stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided,' he said. Trump also repeatedly boasted that he could have the fighting 'settled' within 24 hours. Through much of his campaign, Trump criticized U.S. support for Ukraine and derided Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a 'salesman' for persuading Washington to provide weapons and funding to his country. Revisiting the relationship Once he became president, Trump stopped claiming he'd solve the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. In March, he said he was "being a little bit sarcastic' when he said that. Since the early days of Trump's second term, Putin has pushed for a summit while trying to pivot from the Ukrainian conflict by emphasizing the prospect of launching joint U.S.-Russian economic projects, among other issues. 'We'd better meet and have a calm conversation on all issues of interest to both the United States and Russia based on today's realities,' Putin said in January. In February, things looked favorable for Putin when Trump had a blowup with Zelenskyy at the White House, berating him as 'disrespectful." In late March, Trump still spoke of trusting Putin when it came to hopes for a ceasefire, saying, 'I don't think he's going to go back on his word." But a month later, as Russian strikes escalated, Trump posted a public and personal plea on his social media account: 'Vladimir, STOP!' He began voicing more frustration with the Russian leader, saying he was 'Just tapping me along.' In May, he wrote on social media that Putin 'has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Earlier this month, Trump ordered the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of the country's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. Trump's vocal protests about Putin have tempered somewhat since he announced their meeting, but so have his predictions for what he might accomplish. Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump described their upcoming summit not as the occasion in which he'd finally get the conflict 'settled' but instead as 'really a feel-out meeting, a little bit.' 'I think it'll be good,' Trump said. 'But it might be bad.'