The lobbying group "Stand With Crypto" is backing 32 candidates for the US House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms. Every endorsed incumbent previously voted for the Clarity Act, which has been stuck in the Senate since July 2025.
Stand With Crypto is a political advocacy group that campaigns for crypto-friendly legislation in the US. The group rates lawmakers on their positions on digital assets and issues election recommendations. It also mobilizes its registered supporters ahead of elections. Large direct spending on campaign advertising, however, is not its focus, unlike the industry's super PACs. Coinbase originally launched the organization in 2023 and still funds it today. Meanwhile, it counts more than 3 million registered "advocates" across the US. The current list includes Republicans such as Warren Davidson, Tom Emmer, Bill Huizenga, Juan Ciscomani and Brian Fitzpatrick. In addition, Democrats Ritchie Torres and Josh Gottheimer appear on it.
Subscribe to our newsletter
The best articles of the week, directly delivered into your mailbox.
Who Stand With Crypto backs for Congress
All 32 endorsed incumbents share the same vote. They backed the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act in the House. The bill would create the first comprehensive federal regulation for US crypto markets. The chamber passed the draft in July 2025 by 294 to 134 votes, including 78 Democrats. Since then, however, the measure has waited in the Senate. A simple majority does not suffice there, because opening debate requires 60 votes.
For the industry, the bill remains the central priority of this legislative term. The organization deliberately rewards incumbents with a documented voting record. Therefore, the vote counts, not the party affiliation. In March 2026, the group endorsed six lawmakers for the first time. That list included Zach Nunn (R-Iowa), Susie Lee (D-Nevada) and Mike Lawler (R-New York). Don Davis (D-North Carolina), Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) and Rob Bresnahan (R-Pennsylvania) also made it onto the roster. Furthermore, the group launched its Voter Hub at the same time. It rates officeholders publicly on their crypto positions.
Executive Director Mason Lynaugh frames the midterms as a turning point for crypto policy in Washington. At the same time, candidates from both parties are trying to reach voters outside their traditional base, he said. Anyone who overlooks crypto voters does so at their own peril. For the group, the midterms are thus a test of its own mobilizing power.
Ethics fight over Trump's crypto dealings blocks the Senate
In the Senate, September 15 decides whether the Clarity Act reaches debate at all. A procedural cloture vote sits on the agenda, and it requires 60 votes. That majority, however, is not currently in sight. The reason is the dispute over Trump's personal crypto income. Both camps have therefore been negotiating an ethics clause for weeks, so far without result.
The president initially agreed to a first version of this clause in July 2026. It bars officeholders and their spouses from issuing or promoting digital assets. The ban thus targets officeholders in general, not the president alone. Democrats, however, criticize that enforcement rests solely with the Justice Department. Ruben Gallego, a Democrat, and Republican Thom Tillis additionally want to extend it to state attorneys general. The White House has not yet agreed to the bipartisan proposal.
The central point of contention consequently remains open ahead of the vote. And without Democratic votes, the bill will not clear the 60-vote hurdle. On the Democratic side, Kirsten Gillibrand is negotiating the bill. Her vote counts among those needed for that hurdle. She considers the existing clause unenforceable. Moreover, polling data backs her up. In a Reuters/Ipsos survey in mid-August, 63% of the 1,166 US adults surveyed considered Trump's crypto profits inappropriate.
"We can pass smart, clear rules for digital assets and at the same time prevent the president from enriching himself. It takes an enforceable ban, and any market structure bill that leaves enforcement solely to the president's Justice Department and allows him to profit from crypto is not reform. It is a free pass." - Kirsten Gillibrand, US Senator (D-New York)
How crypto PACs once decided a Senate race
Through direct spending, the industry already shaped a Senate race back in 2024. Super PACs in the US may campaign for or against candidates without limit. However, they may not coordinate with those campaigns. The crypto committee Fairshake originally announced USD 12 million in support of Republican Bernie Moreno in Ohio. Ultimately, around USD 40 million flowed into the race through Fairshake and allied committees. Moreno defeated crypto-skeptical incumbent Sherrod Brown, then chair of the Senate Banking Committee. As a result, the race counts as evidence of the sector's clout.
Ohio again sits at the center in 2026. Brown wants to return to the Senate and faces Republican Jon Husted in November. This time, however, the headwind comes from a different direction. The Sentinel Action Fund and the affiliated organization Right Vote pledged USD 8 million in support of Husted in April. Comparatively early in the election cycle, a sum in the millions is therefore on the table in a single race.
In total, the crypto industry has already channeled around USD 200 million into the midterms. Fairshake alone held around USD 141 million in funds in July. Against those sums, 32 endorsements look comparatively modest. Nevertheless, they target a resource other than airtime, namely organized voters in individual districts. Both instruments work together in the same election cycle.
Why Stand With Crypto leaves the Senate aside for now
For the Senate, the group is issuing no recommendations at this stage. Those follow later, closer to election day in November. Yet the Senate races decide precisely the chamber where the Clarity Act is stuck. The six lawmakers endorsed in March are also running for the House, not for the second chamber. Moreover, senators have not voted on the Clarity Act so far.
In the House, by contrast, a clear vote exists. The draft has now sat in the Senate for more than a year. Points of contention there include yields on stablecoins and concerns about the financing of illegal activity. Since the summer, the ethics conflict has dominated the negotiations. It remains open whether the White House will agree to the Gallego and Tillis proposal.
September 15 thus becomes a test for both sides. If the cloture vote fails, the draft will not reach the floor. Ultimately, though, voters in November decide the next Congress.
