Crypto’s Costly Illinois Primary Loss
This week’s Illinois primary saw the crypto industry investing heavily, often to no avail. As these companies gear up to funnel significant amounts into the 2026 midterm elections—hoping to replicate their 2024 success—the Illinois outcome serves as an early hurdle for those wanting to solidify their influence in U.S. politics.
Cryptocurrency firms poured millions into the Democratic primary, backing candidates they believe will adopt a more lenient stance on regulating digital assets. In contrast, AI companies seemingly backed opposing candidates, which might have neutralized their respective impacts.
By utilizing super PACs with limitless budgets, both cryptocurrency and AI firms launched TV ads while occasionally distributing campaign flyers. However, the focus was less on their industries and more on broad promises to contest the Trump administration and endorse progressive policies—similar to tactics used by other organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Despite this indirect approach, the involvement of both sectors stirred considerable controversy during Illinois’ chaotic primary, which was marked by an unusually high number of open seats and intense competition.
The crypto-supporting political action committee FairShake invested over $10 million backing Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton, who ultimately secured the Democratic nomination to succeed U.S. Senator Dick Durbin.
While Mr. Stratton doesn’t have a clear record with cryptocurrencies, his connection to Governor JB Pritzker—a billionaire who donated $6 million to the Super PAC supporting her—has put her at the forefront. Pritzker has previously enacted laws at the state level that regulate cryptocurrency, positioning Stratton as likely to follow his lead.
In addition, FairShake and Protect Progress, both with ties to the crypto space, invested millions backing Stratton’s primary rivals, Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly, but to no avail, as per Federal Election Commission filings.
Mixed results characterized technology advocacy groups in the Illinois U.S. House primary. State Representative LaShawn Ford, who supported state legislation regulating AI and cryptocurrency, triumphed in the Democratic primary, succeeding Danny Davis. FairShake opposed Ford by spending nearly $2.5 million amidst a landscape where multiple groups operated both for and against various progressive candidates.
Interestingly, the success of candidates often correlated with the crypto industry’s lesser spending. For instance, Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller triumphed over Kelly after FairShake had poured over $800,000 against state Senator Robert Peters, another progressive supporting cryptocurrencies’ regulation.
AI Firms’ Competing Support
A fresh influx of funds into the Illinois race, including several rival contributions from AI companies exceeding nearly $20 million, underscored the political ambitions of both sectors, elevating the stakes in an already fierce primary.
Adam Green, a co-founder of the Campaign Committee for Progressive Change, remarked, “Corporate money is being used to portray corporate-backed candidates as fearless progressives. The concern for Democrats should be whether they choose someone who genuinely believes in these ideals or just a candidate who offers platitudes.”
The AI-focused Think Big Pack invested over $1 million backing former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., who pleaded guilty in a fraud case back in 2013. Conversely, the Jobs and Democracy Pack ramped up its negative campaigns against Jackson by about $1 million during the race.
Think Big operates under Leading the Future, a political entity backed by prominent Silicon Valley figures, including Marc Andreessen, who has expressed opposition to federal AI regulation while supporting the Republican president’s policies. Meanwhile, the Jobs and Democracy Pack receives funding from AI firm Anthropic, advocating for certain safety regulations as AI technology evolves. Both factions targeted progressive candidates who called for stricter regulations and higher taxes on the wealthy.
The political sway of the tech industry is still a point of contention among campaign finance experts and the electorate at large. Brian Gaines, a political science professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, noted, “They’re so new to the scene that public sentiment hasn’t really solidified against them. There’s no clear indication of who stands for progressive values versus moderate positions in the realm of AI and cryptocurrency policies.”
