By Shelby Stewart
Essence
There is money in politics. And then, according to Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), there is the kind of money now flowing from the cryptocurrency industry—enough to fundamentally change who gets heard, who gets elected and which issues make it to the halls of Congress. That was the warning the longtime Texas congressman brought to Washington, D.C., during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s 55th Annual Legislative Conference, where conversations about the future of Black political power, representation and policy were unfolding across the city. During a fireside chat titled “The Cryptocracy: How the Administration, Its Crypto Allies, and Their Millions Are Infecting Black Politics,” Green examined the growing political influence of the cryptocurrency industry and the millions of dollars its allies are pouring into elections. “One industry [shouldn’t] have that kind of impact on Congress,” Green said, describing an environment in which lawmakers who oppose the interests of powerful outside groups can find themselves on the receiving end of millions of dollars in political spending. “They have money that we can’t even imagine,” he continued. “When you read these articles, you should really take the time to read them. And you can see the flow of money. Just look at the amount of money they have.” For Green, the issue isn’t theoretical. Earlier this year, the Texas Democrat found himself at the center of one of the clearest examples of crypto money entering a congressional race. After redistricting reshaped Texas’ congressional map, Green faced fellow Democratic Rep. Christian Menefee in the newly drawn 18th Congressional District. Protect Progress, a crypto-aligned super PAC affiliated with Fairshake, spent more than $4 million supporting Menefee during the primary and runoff, according to Federal Election Commission filings reviewed by The Texas Tribune. Axios later estimated that the group poured nearly $5 million into the race. The spending was independent of Menefee’s campaign. The scale of that investment placed Green’s race within a much larger deviation in American campaign spending. Protect Progress is the Democratic-focused affiliate of Fairshake, one of the cryptocurrency industry’s major political organizations. The group supports candidates it views as favorable to cryptocurrency and blockchain policy. Its counterpart, Defend American Jobs, focuses its spending on Republican candidates. FactCheck.org reported that Fairshake had contributed at least $51 million to the two affiliated super PACs during the 2026 midterm cycle as of its August analysis. And crypto interests are hardly operating on the margins. An Axios analysis of federal campaign finance data found that eight of the 12 largest outside spenders in House primaries at the time were political groups associated with cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence or pro-Israel interests. Protect Progress alone had spent $15.8 million across nearly a dozen Democratic primaries by late May. For Black voters, the implications of that spending are particularly significant when those millions enter races that determine who will represent predominantly Black communities in Washington. It is part of what made Green’s warning especially pointed at ALC 55. This year, more than 100 issue forums and brain trusts are bringing lawmakers, advocates, policymakers and community leaders together under the theme “Rooted, Ready & Rising.” Green’s argument during the fireside chat extended beyond cryptocurrency. He pointed to AIPAC while discussing the broader power of well-funded outside organizations to spend heavily in congressional elections when lawmakers or candidates diverge from their policy priorities. “Don’t forget AIPAC too,” Green said. “If you don’t support sending money to Israel, AIPAC is going to come after you if they can.” AIPAC-affiliated United Democracy Project has also been among the largest outside spenders in House primaries this cycle, spending $11.6 million as of late May, according to Axios’ analysis of FEC data. Green also made his own position on additional U.S. funding for Israel clear. “I am one of the persons who sent the speaker a letter letting him [Trump] know that I have no desire to ever vote to send any more money to Israel,” he said. But the larger concern running through the conversation was not about any one organization. It was about what happens when industries and interest groups accumulate enough financial power to dramatically influence the political environment surrounding a congressional race. That tension is particularly pronounced with cryptocurrency because Congress is simultaneously deciding how the rapidly growing industry should be regulated. Green, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, has opposed major crypto legislation, including market structure and stablecoin measures. Protect Progress announced its initial $1.5 million effort against him in February, as crypto-aligned political organizations began deploying resources ahead of the midterms. The resulting debate is not simply about whether candidates should accept support from a particular industry. Independent expenditures by super PACs are legally separate from candidates’ campaigns. The question raised at the CBC gathering was what that scale of spending means for voters when outside organizations can invest millions of dollars into influencing a single congressional contest. Green has made that question central to his criticism of the crypto industry’s political activity. During the Texas race, he described himself on the House floor as an “unbought, liberated, unafraid Democrat, unbought by crypto cash,” while criticizing the money pouring into the contest. His warning arrives at a consequential moment for Black political representation. The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation opened this year’s ALC by describing the gathering as a call for civic engagement and collective action amid challenges facing Black communities nationwide. Against that backdrop, Green’s fireside chat raised another question for Black voters to consider as the midterms approach: When millions of dollars can suddenly descend on a congressional district, how much power remains with the people who actually live there? For Green, following the money is one place to start. “They have money that we can’t even imagine,” he said. At a conference built around Black political power, the warning was difficult to separate from the larger question hanging over Washington: who gets to wield it?
