U.S.-China Relations
NextFin News - The crypto industry poured roughly $176 million into more than 100 midterm races this election cycle, backed 58 candidates in primaries and special elections, and watched 53 of them advance to the November 3 ballot. Yet as the votes settle, the sector is preparing for something its political checkbook could not prevent: a Congress where some of its toughest critics hold subpoena power.
Sherrod Brown's potential return to the Senate from Ohio, and Representative Sean Casten's bid for a leadership slot on the House Financial Services panel, are forcing Wall Street and crypto firms to brace for a more adversarial Washington even as Bitcoin trades above $81,000 and the total crypto market capitalization sits near $2.8 trillion. The tension is stark: an industry that has bought political access is about to face politicians who were never for sale.
The Situation: Money Won Races, but the Committees Are the Prize
The current ranking Democrats on the Senate Banking and House Financial Services committees — Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Representative Maxine Waters of California — appear set to keep their posts after the midterms. But Brown's possible reappearance and Casten's more prominent role would bring intense scrutiny, and potentially committee subpoena powers under a Democratic majority, to the crypto and banking sectors.
Brown might not leapfrog Warren to lead the Banking Committee. Senate Democratic conference rules date seniority from a member's "current entry," and Warren, elected in 2012, has served continuously while Brown lost his seat two years ago. Instead, Brown could lead a subcommittee on panels where he previously served, such as Agriculture or Finance, or on Appropriations, where vacancies are opening as Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire retire. Casten, meanwhile, may settle for leading a House Financial Services subcommittee after making a play for Waters' top spot.
The industry knows what is coming. Ron Hammond, head of policy and advocacy at Wintermute, a crypto trading firm, put it plainly:
"There's a lot of things that come to play here, at least for the market side of things, especially the crypto side. Sherrod Brown has been no friend to the industry and he has blocked many repeat attempts at things like stablecoin legislation."
The political arithmetic explains the alarm. Fairshake, the industry's largest super PAC, spent nearly $55 million in Brown's Ohio race alone against Republican Senator Jon Husted, according to a spokesperson for the group. More broadly, Fairshake and its affiliates had spent roughly $150.8 million on the 2026 midterms by October 20, with other crypto groups contributing about $25 million — approximately $176 million across more than 100 races, as part of a years-long plan to build a bipartisan coalition that can advance the industry's interests beyond the Trump presidency. In the 2024 cycle, the group spent $196 million.
Every major crypto firm with ties to President Donald Trump and his family — including prediction-market operators Polymarket and Kalshi, World Liberty Financial, and Changpeng Zhao, the Binance founder who received a presidential pardon — has moved to hire prominent lobbyists and lawyers, some with ties to Democratic lawmakers, ahead of possible congressional probes. The Trump family itself made roughly $2.3 billion from crypto ventures between mid-2024 and April 2026, according to an investigation, which helps explain why Democratic investigators would find the sector such an attractive target.
Advocacy group Public Citizen called crypto the single-biggest corporate spender in federal races in 2026, after describing its 2024 spending as "akin to a corporate Death Star hovering over elections." The irony is that the spending may have awakened the very opposition it hoped to neutralize: Democratic candidates including Brown and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia have used the industry's outsized political footprint as a campaign weapon, framing crypto as an extension of the president's own conflicts.
Why the Market Is Shrugging Off Political Risk
Here is the puzzle: crypto prices are not behaving like a sector under siege. Bitcoin traded at $81,359.62 as of 7 a.m. Eastern Time on October 28, up $1,603.25 from the prior day and roughly $31,556 higher than a year earlier. Ethereum stood at $2,363.28, with a market capitalization of about $233 billion, second only to Bitcoin's roughly $1.33 trillion. XRP was at $1.32 and Tether at $0.99 at the same timestamp.
The divergence between asset prices and political risk is not an accident. It reflects a market that has learned to distinguish between two kinds of hostility. Oversight hearings, subpoenas, and pointed letters from committee chairs are theater — loud, damaging to reputations, but rarely fatal to business models. What actually moves crypto valuations is the regulatory framework: whether digital assets are treated as securities or commodities, whether stablecoin issuers can pay yield, and whether exchanges can list tokens without prior registration.
On that front, the ground has shifted structurally. The Securities and Exchange Commission has moved away from regulation-by-enforcement toward an interpretive and exemptive approach, including a March interpretive release that reclassified several major digital assets as non-security digital commodities. That framework rests on existing statutory authority rather than new legislation, which means it is not automatically undone by a change in congressional control. The more direct threat to its durability is the composition of the Commission itself — confirmations and resignations — which depends on timing rather than election results.
Equity markets, however, are pricing a different story. Coinbase shares slipped 1.85% to $158.12, while Robinhood fell 4.14% to $90.65 and Circle dropped 2.54% to $79.51 on October 28, as the exchange reported earnings and disclosed that Robinhood's crypto revenue had sunk 55%. Those moves reflect a simpler truth: no amount of political spending can substitute for a rebound in retail trading volume, and the earnings tape is still the most honest regulator in the room.
The CLARITY Act Is Dead, and Both Parties Killed It
The legislative reality undercuts the narrative that a Republican Congress would deliver crypto's regulatory promised land. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act stalled on September 15, 2026, when the Senate failed to invoke cloture on a vote of 49 to 50 — short of the 60 votes needed, and with Republicans holding 53 seats. The bill foundered on two issues unrelated to the underlying technology: ethics provisions addressing federal officials' personal crypto holdings, and stablecoin yield language that regional banks argued would accelerate the movement of customer deposits out of the banking system.
The legislative history shows how close the industry came, and how far it still is. The House passed its version of the Clarity Act on July 17, 2025, with a bipartisan vote of 294 to 134. The Senate Banking Committee approved its version on May 14, 2026, by 15 to 9, and the Senate Agriculture Committee passed a companion measure, the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act, on January 29, 2026. Yet none of it became law, because the final 11 votes could not be found in a Senate where the opposing party held a 53-seat majority.
Senator Thom Tillis has filed a motion to reconsider, but the bill is best treated as dead until the 120th Congress convenes in January 2027. And even then, the outcome is not guaranteed. A Democratic House would likely attach significantly stronger consumer-protection, conflict-of-interest, and decentralized-finance disclosure provisions to any market-structure bill, further delaying approval. Republican control of both chambers would remove that oversight friction but would not remove the 60-vote threshold, which does not depend on which party holds the majority.
The bipartisan nature of the stalemate was captured bluntly by Senator Angela Alsobrooks, Democrat of Maryland, who was deeply involved in the Clarity Act negotiations. When asked whether a Democratic-controlled Congress would prioritize the bill, she said:
"Absolutely not."
This is the second-order reality the market is only beginning to price: crypto regulation in America no longer breaks along partisan lines. The industry's enemies are not a party; they are a set of institutional incentives — regional banks defending deposits, consumer advocates defending investors, and a Senate that requires 60 votes for anything consequential. An industry that spent $176 million to build a bipartisan coalition may have discovered that bipartisanship, in a 60-vote chamber, is another word for gridlock.
The Cyclical Threat and the Structural Shift
Separating the cyclical from the structural is essential, because conflating them produces the wrong conclusion. The hostility is cyclical. Committee chairmanships rotate with elections; subpoena powers expand and contract with majorities; Sherrod Brown can be voted out again in six years. Former CFTC Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo has argued that crypto was non-political until the collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried's empire, that Senator Warren's camp turned hostile partly out of embarrassment rather than admit getting too close to a fraudster, and that President Trump then seized the political opportunity. Fairshake's election spending, in that telling, woke Congress to crypto's fundraising power — a dynamic that may fade as the issue becomes generational rather than tribal. That is a story about personalities and moments, not about permanent conditions.
The structural shift runs the other direction. Three things have changed for good. First, crypto has become a permanent fixture of American political finance: $176 million in a single midterm cycle, on top of $196 million in 2024, means the industry now commands the kind of donor network that forces both parties to listen, even the ones that rhetorically oppose it.
Second, the regulatory regime has migrated from enforcement to interpretation. A framework built on interpretive releases and exemptive orders does not require Congress to act, which insulates it from the very gridlock that killed the Clarity Act. Third, Wall Street has crossed the Rubicon: Coinbase is adding Ripple's RLUSD stablecoin — which has a market capitalization above $2.5 billion — alongside Circle's USDC, PayPal's PYUSD, and Open USD, a stablecoin issued through a joint venture backed by Visa, Mastercard, and Coinbase. When the legacy financial infrastructure is issuing and listing dollar tokens, the debate is no longer whether crypto belongs in the system, but under whose rules it operates.
Former CFTC Chairman Giancarlo, whose former clerk Mike Selig now leads the agency, has argued that the real resistance to crypto is not ideology but the bank lobby — and that banks will ultimately be dragged onto tokenized rails regardless. That prediction, if it proves right, would make today's congressional posturing look like a rearguard action against an inevitability.
The Strongest Counter-Thesis
The bear case is not hard to state. It holds that the market is underpricing political risk because it has mistaken a pause in enforcement for a permanent truce. If Democrats take either chamber, they inherit committee gavels they have been eager to use. Warren's record on crypto enforcement is well documented; Brown blocked stablecoin legislation repeatedly; Casten has introduced bills to combat illicit activity in decentralized finance. All three carry "F" ratings from the advocacy group Stand With Crypto, which cited their votes against industry-supported stablecoin and crypto legislation.
A Democratic majority would not need to pass new law to make life difficult. It could freeze nominees to the SEC and CFTC, attach appropriations riders to the SEC's funding, and launch investigations that consume management time and spook institutional allocators. That case is serious, and it is why crypto-adjacent equities are already showing strain on the day: Coinbase down 1.85%, Robinhood down 4.14%, Circle down 2.54%.
But the bear case mistakes the weapon for the war. Investigations generate headlines, not statutes. The 60-vote threshold means a Democratic Congress is no more capable of passing restrictive crypto legislation than a Republican one — and the Clarity Act's failure with 53 Republican seats proves that even unified government cannot deliver the industry's agenda when internal factions defect. Regional banks killed the stablecoin-yield provision; ethics hawks killed the conflicts language. A Democratic majority would face the same centrifugal forces from its own progressive and consumer-protection wings.
The falsifying signal is specific: if a Democratic-controlled Congress passes, and a president signs, legislation that reclassifies major digital assets as securities or reverses the SEC's March interpretive framework within 12 months of taking office, then the structural-shift thesis is wrong and political risk is being underpriced. Short of that, subpoenas and hearings are noise — costly, but not existential.
What Comes Next
The near-term path runs through the 120th Congress in January 2027. In the base case, divided or narrowly unified government produces more oversight and less legislation: hearings, document requests, and appropriations skirmishes, with the Clarity Act or a scaled-back successor lingering in committee. Beneficiaries of that world are large, compliance-heavy incumbents — Coinbase, Circle, Ripple — whose legal departments can absorb scrutiny better than smaller rivals, and whose balance sheets let them keep listing new assets while competitors retreat.
In the upside case, Republicans retain both chambers and the negotiators behind the September 49-vote effort return to their committee posts, raising the odds of a 2027 bill resembling the current Clarity Act text. That would be the clearest positive catalyst for the sector since the March interpretive release — but it still requires resolving the ethics and stablecoin-yield disputes that sank the first attempt. Senator Tillis's motion to reconsider is the first marker to watch.
In the downside case, Democrats take the House and turn financial-services oversight into a weekly spectacle, targeting Trump-tied crypto and prediction-market firms. That would pressure crypto-adjacent equities and could slow institutional adoption even if spot prices hold. The signals to watch are not Bitcoin's price — they are whether any nominee to the SEC or CFTC gets confirmed, and whether an appropriations rider successfully constrains the SEC's exemptive authority.
Time horizons point in different directions. Short term, sentiment tracks the election outcome and the Federal Reserve's rate path, with the central bank's decision due within hours of the October 28 price snapshot. Medium term, earnings matter more than politics: Coinbase's trading-volume rebound and Robinhood's 55% crypto-revenue decline show that the real story is whether retail activity returns. Long term, the structural forces — tokenized deposits, stablecoin adoption, and a regulatory framework built on interpretation rather than enforcement — outrank any single Congress.
The irony is not lost on the industry: it spent $176 million to buy influence, only to discover that in a 60-vote Senate, influence buys gridlock — and gridlock, for a sector that has outgrown its regulators, may be the most favorable outcome of all.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
