329
Audio & Video Production315
Software Development242
Automation & Workflow207
AI Infrastructure & MLOps148
Marketing & Growth188
Writing & Content Creation193
Data & Analytics121
Design & Creative149
Customer Support122
Photography & Imaging140
Voice & Speech132
Sales & Outreach112
Education & Learning121
Operations & Admin86
New filings show crypto and AI political groups raised about $250 million to influence US midterm races, including major donations from top tech investors.
In short: Crypto and AI political groups have raised about $250 million over the past year to support candidates in the 2026 US midterm elections.
A Financial Times analysis of US campaign finance records found that political action committees, often called PACs, linked to the crypto and AI industries raised about $250 million in the past year. A PAC is a group that collects money to support or oppose political candidates.
Some of the biggest donations came in early 2026. Investors Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz donated a combined $25 million in February to a pro-AI Super PAC called Leading The Future. A Super PAC is a type of PAC that can raise unlimited amounts of money (like a very large fundraising bucket), but it cannot give money directly to a candidate’s campaign.
Crypto-focused groups also raised large sums. Cantor Fitzgerald gave $10 million to a pro-crypto group called Fellowship PAC, and another crypto-linked company, Anchor Labs, added $1 million. Fairshake, described as the crypto industry’s largest Super PAC, has raised more than $134 million.
AI policy is becoming a major fight in the midterms. Some groups are pushing for lighter rules on AI and want to stop US states from making their own AI laws. Polls cited in the report show many Americans support stricter AI rules, including many who voted for Donald Trump in 2024.
Many of these PACs support both Republican and Democratic candidates, so the main split may be over how AI and crypto should be regulated, not just party lines. Watch for more spending in key races, and for debates over “dark money” groups, which can spend on politics without naming their donors.
Source: Financial Times