Introduction

The crypto industry spent more money on the 2026 US midterms than any industry its size has ever spent on a single election cycle. The final tally from Fairshake and its affiliated committees came in north of $170 million. That money was supposed to buy friends in Congress. Instead, Democrats swept both chambers, and the two people who will now control the committees that oversee crypto are two of the industry's loudest critics. The spending did not just fail to stop them. In at least one race, it may have helped them win.

Here is the part almost nobody is talking about. The election result is not the story. The committee assignments are. In January, Senator Elizabeth Warren is expected to take the gavel at the Senate Banking Committee. Representative Maxine Waters is expected to lead the House Banking Committee. Those two committees decide which crypto bills get a vote and which ones die in a drawer. The CLARITY Act, the industry's best shot at clear market structure rules, expires on January 3. It failed in the Senate by a single vote in September. The people who will decide whether it gets another chance are the people crypto just spent $170 million trying to defeat.

That is the real bill for the midterms. Not the money. The access.

The Money Went Out. The Wins Didn't Come Back.

Fairshake and its two affiliates, Protect Progress and Defend American Jobs, spread roughly $170 million across dozens of races. The headline win rate looked respectable: the network supported 90 candidates and 73 of them won, according to reporting from Fortune. That is an 81 percent success rate. It sounds like a triumph until you look at which 17 candidates lost.

The biggest loss was in Ohio. Democrat Sherrod Brown, a former Senate Banking Committee chairman and one of the most consistent crypto skeptics in Congress, won his race to return to the Senate. Crypto-aligned committees spent more than $64 million trying to stop him. Fairshake alone put $30 million into ads against him, according to CoinJar's election recap. Brown won anyway. He is now in line for a senior committee role with direct jurisdiction over crypto legislation.

The second problem is what the money could not buy. Fairshake spent heavily to support Republicans in swing states. Several of those Republicans lost. The industry's spending was concentrated on races where the candidate's position on crypto was already friendly. It did not move the races where crypto was on the ballot as a liability.

Sherrod Brown and the $64 Million Failure

Brown's victory is the cleanest example of the spending strategy failing. Crypto groups treated Ohio as a must-win. They poured more money into that race than into almost any other Senate contest. The message was simple: Brown is anti-crypto, and Ohio should replace him. Ohio voters disagreed. Brown won decisively, according to Reuters, despite the $64 million spent against him.

What makes this worse for the industry is that Brown's win was not a fluke. It was part of a broader pattern. Democrats won control of both the House and the Senate. The committees that will shape crypto policy in 2027 are now chaired by people who have spent years arguing that crypto needs stricter consumer protections, not lighter ones. The money did not buy a friendlier Congress. It bought a Congress that is about to hold hearings on the industry's ties to the Trump family and its marketing practices.

The 80% Win Rate That Wasn't Enough

The 73 out of 90 win rate is real. But it measures the wrong thing. Most of those 73 winners were already safe incumbents or candidates in districts where crypto was not a deciding issue. The money went to races that were already leaning in the industry's direction. The 17 losses happened in the races that actually mattered for committee control.

This is a classic political spending trap. You can win most of the small fights and still lose the war. The crypto PACs optimized for the number of friendly legislators, not for control of the committees that set the agenda. The agenda now belongs to Warren and Waters.

The Committee Chairs Who Will Rewrite the Rules

The Senate Banking Committee and the House Banking Committee are the two most important bodies for crypto legislation in the United States. They decide which bills advance, which witnesses testify, and which issues get investigated. In January, both will be led by Democrats who have publicly criticized the crypto industry.

Elizabeth Warren's Senate Banking Committee

Warren has been the crypto industry's most persistent opponent in the Senate. She opposed the CLARITY Act in September, arguing that it was written by the industry for the industry and did not do enough to prevent the financing of illicit activity. She has also called for scrutiny of the Trump family's crypto ventures and of prediction markets. In November, her office told The Block that she plans to focus on those two areas when she takes the chair.

That is a direct threat to some of the industry's most valuable business lines. Prediction markets have become a major crypto adjacent sector. The Trump family's crypto holdings have become a political flashpoint. Warren now has subpoena power and a committee staff to investigate both. The industry's lobbying budget cannot stop a committee chair from holding a hearing.

Maxine Waters and the House

Waters is expected to lead the House Banking Committee. She offered a consumer protection amendment during the House debate on the CLARITY Act, and House Democrats now plan to expand that amendment into a broader market structure bill, according to reporting from CoinPaprika. That bill would give the SEC a larger role in crypto oversight, which is the opposite of what the industry wanted from CLARITY.

The House version matters because it sets the starting point for negotiations. If the House passes a bill with a stronger SEC role, the Senate will negotiate from that position. The industry's preferred version, which would have limited the SEC's authority, is no longer the baseline.

The CLARITY Act Clock Is Running Out

The CLARITY Act failed in the Senate on September 15 by a vote of 49 to 50. It is set to expire on January 3 unless Congress passes it in the lame duck session. The lame duck is the period between the election and the new Congress being sworn in. It is the industry's last window to get something done before Warren and Waters take control.

That window is narrow. The Senate has to find 51 votes for a bill that already failed once. The House has to pass a version that can survive a Senate vote. And the clock is running. If CLARITY does not pass by January 3, the bill dies, and the new Congress has to start over with committee chairs who are openly hostile to the industry's preferred approach.

The industry's best hope is that a handful of moderate Democrats decide they want a market structure bill more than they want to wait for Warren's version. That is possible. But it is not the outcome the $170 million was supposed to buy.

FAQ

What did the crypto industry spend on the 2026 midterms?
Fairshake and its affiliated committees spent more than $170 million, according to Fortune and Reuters. That is roughly double what the industry spent in the 2024 cycle.

Did crypto-backed candidates win or lose?
They won 73 of the 90 races they supported, an 81 percent win rate. But they lost the races that determined control of the committees that oversee crypto, including Sherrod Brown's Senate race in Ohio.

Who will chair the crypto oversight committees in 2027?
Senator Elizabeth Warren is expected to chair the Senate Banking Committee. Representative Maxine Waters is expected to lead the House Banking Committee. Both are Democrats and both have been critical of the crypto industry.

What happens to the CLARITY Act now?
It expires on January 3 unless Congress passes it in the lame duck session. It failed in the Senate by a 49 to 50 vote in September. The new Congress would have to start over with committee chairs who are less friendly to the industry's preferred version.

Did the midterms affect Bitcoin's price?
Bitcoin initially rose above $81,000 after the election, then fell to $74,780, its lowest price since August, as tech stocks sold off and strong jobs data revived rate hike concerns. The price move was driven more by macroeconomic factors than by the election result itself.

Is crypto regulation now dead in the US?
Not dead, but harder. A market structure bill is still possible, especially if moderate Democrats negotiate. But the starting point has shifted toward stronger SEC oversight and more consumer protection, which is not what the industry spent $170 million to achieve.

Conclusion

The crypto industry's midterm strategy was simple: spend enough money to elect friendly legislators and stop the critics. It failed on both counts. The critics are now committee chairs. The friendly legislators are in the minority. The CLARITY Act is running out of time. And the industry's lobbying budget, which looked so powerful a year ago, just bought a Congress that is about to investigate it.

The lesson is not that political spending never works. The lesson is that spending without a committee strategy is wasted money. The industry optimized for the number of friendly votes, not for control of the agenda. Now the agenda belongs to Elizabeth Warren and Maxine Waters. The $170 million bought a lot of ads. It did not buy a single gavel.

One question for you: If you ran a crypto PAC with $170 million to spend, would you spend it on more ads in Ohio, or on building relationships with the staffers who will write the committee's first draft? Tell me your strategy in the comments.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Crypto assets and crypto-related equities are volatile and involve risk. Always do your own research before making any investment decision.