90% of Crypto Industry's $14.2M Illinois Primary Spending Failed to Achieve Its Objective

The Crypto Industry's Political Spending Problem

Cryptocurrency industry super PACs poured $14.2 million into the Illinois primaries. According to researcher Molly White's analysis, 90% of that spending — $12.8 million — was effectively wasted.

The money went toward opposing Democratic candidates who won their primaries anyway, or supporting their opponents who lost.

Where the Money Went

• $10 million — Opposing Senate candidate Juliana Stratton, who won
• $2.5 million — Opposing H-07 candidate La Shawn Ford, who won

The Fairshake pro-crypto super PAC network's only victories in Illinois came from outcomes that were already highly likely:

• Opposed Robert Peters (H-02), who was polling third and received only 12% of the vote
• Supported Bean (leading in H-08 polls) and incumbent Budzinski (H-13)

In other words, the PACs spent millions on races they lost and claimed credit for races that were never in doubt.

The Bigger Picture

This is not an isolated incident. The crypto industry has become one of the largest political spenders in US elections, deploying hundreds of millions through super PACs like Fairshake, Defend American Jobs, and Protect Progress.

However, the results have been mixed at best. When PAC money fails to sway elections, it raises fundamental questions about the industry's political strategy:

1. Voter priorities differ from industry priorities — Crypto regulation is not a top-of-mind issue for most primary voters
2. Incumbency advantage is hard to overcome — $10M couldn't unseat a Senate candidate in a primary
3. Money matters less in primaries — Smaller, more engaged electorates are harder to influence with ad spending

What Comes Next

White notes that the Illinois spending represented less than 6% of what the pro-crypto super PACs have on hand. With eight months remaining until the general election, the industry is positioned to spend significantly more.

The question is whether more spending will produce better results, or whether the industry needs to fundamentally rethink its approach to political influence.

Analysis

The crypto industry faces a paradox: its political influence efforts are massive in scale but limited in effectiveness. When 90% of spending in a single state's primary fails, the strategy needs reevaluation.

Possible alternatives include:

• Grassroots organizing over top-down spending
• Issue education rather than candidate opposition
• Bipartisan engagement instead of party-line spending
• Long-term relationship building with policymakers

But with hundreds of millions already committed to the current approach, changing course mid-election is politically and financially difficult.