Crypto’s $63 million Ohio setback follows broader Democratic gains

By Daniel Okafor

The crypto industry’s $63 million campaign against Sen. Sherrod Brown failed as he won a return to the Senate from Ohio, part of Democratic gains that left the sector facing a potentially less supportive Congress after the Nov. 3, 2026, midterms.

What did Democrats gain in Congress?

Democrats were projected to control both chambers. Their Senate gains extended into traditionally Republican Texas, North Carolina, Kansas, Iowa and South Carolina:

• Texas: James Talarico won with 59% at the latest count.
• North Carolina: Roy Cooper won with nearly 59%.
• Kansas: Adam Hamilton won.
• Iowa: Josh Turek won.
• South Carolina: Annie Andrews led Trump-backed Darline Graham.

Democrats also flipped more than a dozen House seats in the first hours after polls closed. They were projected to exceed the chamber’s 218-seat majority threshold, although the count had not reached that point at publication.

Those results contradicted the sector’s campaign strategy. Crypto super PACs heavily supported Republicans and opposed Democrats even as polling and prediction markets pointed toward Democratic advances.

Where did the crypto campaign money go?

Brown’s win left the industry without the desired result from its Ohio spending. Industry PAC spending reached $170 million ahead of the election, with a late push toward Republicans.

Fairshake spent almost $11 million supporting Republican Pete Ricketts in Nebraska. Ricketts held a narrow lead on election night with just over half the state’s vote counted.

Two high-profile Republican crypto supporters also faced difficult races. Rep. French Hill held a narrow lead late in the Arkansas count, while Rep. Bryan Steil trailed by 4% in Wisconsin as counting approached its final stages.

The spending formed part of a broader surge in political money. The Brennan Center for Justice calculated that the top 40 donors had contributed $2.4 billion by mid-October, seven times their inflation-adjusted giving in 2014.

Their contributions favored Republicans three to one, reversing a two-to-one Democratic advantage in 2014.

Across industries, super PAC spending reached $2 billion by the end of September, up 51% from the previous midterm cycle after inflation. OpenSecrets projected total midterm spending of $11.9 billion.

What does the congressional shift mean for digital assets?

Projected Democratic control raises the hurdle for crypto-backed legislation. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a prominent crypto critic, was expected to chair the Senate Banking Committee, which would need to approve digital-asset bills.

Democrats’ negotiating positions on the failed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act illustrated the policy divide. During this year’s negotiations, they sought tighter controls on illicit finance, stronger consumer protections and limits on government officials participating directly in the industry, particularly President Donald Trump.

The House remains a more supportive venue for digital-asset legislation, with substantial backing from both parties. That bipartisan support contrasts with the more difficult Senate environment facing the industry after the midterms.

Hill chaired the House Financial Services Committee and led the legislative effort that secured a stablecoin law and brought the Clarity Act close to passage. Steil led the committee’s crypto subcommittee.

The split leaves industry-sponsored bills with a more secure route through the House but a less certain path in the Senate. The next test comes when Warren takes the Banking Committee chairmanship and digital-asset legislation returns to the Senate; until then, the House’s bipartisan coalition remains the sector’s clearest route to enactment.