U.S.-China Relations
NextFin News - Nobody is voting on the CLARITY Act this week. The digital-asset market structure bill that the crypto industry has chased for two years failed a Senate procedural vote 49-50 on Sept. 15, eleven votes short of the 60 needed to proceed, and it will not be revived before the 120th Congress convenes in January 2027. Yet crypto groups have still poured roughly $176 million into more than 100 midterm races, with Coinbase, Ripple and Andreessen Horowitz bankrolling the Fairshake network, because Tuesday's vote decides not whether the bill passes now but who writes the next version — and who oversees the regulators writing rules in the meantime.
The central tension: the election is being priced as a crypto-regulation referendum, but the real regulatory action has already moved out of Congress. The Securities and Exchange Commission proposed its standalone "Regulation Crypto Assets" framework on Aug. 18, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission launched its own retail-crypto rulemaking on Oct. 5. Whichever party controls the House and Senate, the agencies are now the primary drafters of crypto market structure — and that shift is structural, not cyclical.
The Stakes: A Stalled Bill, a $176 Million Bet on the Next Congress
Republicans enter Election Day controlling both chambers — 219 House seats and 53 Senate seats — and voters are deciding all 435 House seats and 35 Senate races for the final two years of President Donald Trump's second term. Prediction markets as of Nov. 2 put a Democratic sweep at 77% on Polymarket; the platform priced Democratic control of the House at 95% and the Senate at 78%, while Kalshi placed Democratic Senate odds at 78% and House odds at 93.9%. Nearly $1.9 billion had been wagered on the midterms across the two platforms by Monday evening.
The CLARITY Act — formally the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act — would have divided crypto oversight between the SEC and the CFTC, moving day-to-day supervision of most "digital commodity" trading outside the securities-law framework and setting rules for intermediaries. It passed the House 294-134 but died in the Senate on two issues that had nothing to do with blockchain technology. Senator Mark Warner and other Democrats said the final text did not do enough to stop top government officials from profiting off crypto ventures; regional banks objected to stablecoin-yield language they argued would accelerate deposit outflows. Four Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — voted against cloture.
Tillis switched his vote to no for a procedural reason: to file a motion to reconsider, which keeps the bill technically alive. In practice, with Congress headed for possible split control, the realistic path runs through January 2027 at the earliest — and possibly 2029.
The industry's spending is a down payment on that next Congress. Fairshake and its affiliates account for about $150.8 million of the $176 million total. More than $50 million has gone into Ohio's Senate race alone, opposing Democrat Sherrod Brown, a longtime crypto critic who could return to a senior committee role; Fairshake has devoted roughly $56 million to beating Brown. In Nebraska, the network spent nearly $11 million supporting Republican Pete Ricketts, a Senate Banking Committee member who has backed crypto-friendly legislation.
Why the Election Changes the Timetable, Not the Trajectory
A Democratic takeover would most likely reset the CLARITY Act's timetable. A Democratic House would add oversight hearings, document requests and appropriations riders aimed at the SEC's digital-asset work, and any market-structure bill emerging from a divided 120th Congress would carry stronger consumer-protection, conflict-of-interest and decentralized-finance disclosure provisions. Confirmation of future regulatory nominees would also slow under divided government.
Republican retention of both chambers would remove that oversight friction and speed nominations to the SEC's vacant seats, but it would not remove the 60-vote threshold that sank the bill in September. The negotiators behind the September text would keep their committee chairs, improving the odds of a 2027 bill resembling the current draft — but not guaranteeing resolution of the ethics and stablecoin-yield disputes that killed it.
"A change in control of Congress would most likely reset the timetable for the CLARITY Act," said Christian Davies, group head of innovation and digital capital at Relm Insurance. Ryan Kirkley, chief executive of Global Settlement Network, put the constraint more bluntly: "The CLARITY Act was already struggling to get through the Senate with Republicans in control, so clearly the problem goes beyond which party holds the majority."
The deeper mechanism is that crypto market structure no longer requires 60 Senate votes to exist. The SEC's interpretive and exemptive framework — including its March 2026 joint token taxonomy with the CFTC, which classified assets into five categories including digital commodities and digital securities, and its August interpretive release reclassifying several major tokens as non-security digital commodities — rests on existing statutory authority. A change in congressional control does not reopen it. Only a change in the Commission's own composition, which depends on resignation and confirmation timing rather than the midterms, threatens that framework directly.
The Real Action Has Moved to the Regulators
While Congress stalled, the agencies moved. On Aug. 18 the SEC proposed "Regulation Crypto Assets," a roughly 400-page standalone offering framework published in the Federal Register on Aug. 21. It creates two new Securities Act exemptions with crypto-specific disclosure, a safe harbor under which a token's investment-contract status can formally end, and a pathway tied to the GENIUS Act's stablecoin definitions. On Oct. 5 the CFTC issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on retail crypto-asset trading under Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Commodity Exchange Act — a framework for how exchanges and intermediaries should handle retail digital-commodity transactions.
These are agency actions, not statutes. That makes them faster to adopt but also more fragile: a future Commission can modify a rule adopted through notice-and-comment far more easily than it can overturn an act of Congress. The CLARITY Act's failure, paradoxically, strengthens the agencies' hand in the short run while leaving the long-run framework less durable.
What has already been legislated is the stablecoin regime. The GENIUS Act — the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act — was signed into law on July 18, 2025, establishing the first comprehensive federal framework for payment stablecoins. It requires 1:1 reserve backing in cash, deposits or short-term Treasuries, monthly attestations and dual federal-state chartering, and takes full effect no later than Jan. 18, 2027. That law survives any election outcome and is the one piece of crypto legislation that does not need the 120th Congress.
Bitcoin's Midterm Record Says Little About Tuesday
Bitcoin traded near $77,000 on Election Day — $76,995.40 as of 6:45 a.m. Eastern, down about 0.97% from the prior day and 9% over the past month — as investors weighed a Democratic House against the prospect of divided government. Social-media charts have drawn attention to Bitcoin's midterm history: the token fell below its earlier yearly lows after the 2014, 2018 and 2022 midterms, and midterm years have carried steep drawdowns. Yet analysts caution against reading a pattern into three data points.
"I'd be careful reading much into Bitcoin's record after past midterms," said Michael Heinrich, chief executive and co-founder of 0G Labs. "There haven't been enough cycles to call it a pattern, and the market is built differently now: ETF flows, institutional portfolios and global liquidity move the price far more than they used to."
The historical record cuts both ways. Binance's research notes that Bitcoin averaged a 54% gain in the three post-midterm years on record, and the S&P 500 has risen an average of 19% in the 12 months after midterms since 1939. But midterm years themselves have been volatile, with Bitcoin posting drawdowns of 56% in 2014, 73% in 2018 and 64% in 2022. The post-election bottom has arrived anywhere from 13 days after the vote (2022) to 71 days (2014). In the 30 days following the last six elections, Bitcoin has moved between minus 45% and plus 44%.
The more immediate drivers are not political. Ryan Kirkley of Global Settlement Network framed it plainly: "Bitcoin doesn't need a particular election result to succeed. It needs capital, confidence and a macro environment that gives investors a reason to take risk again." Rate expectations, liquidity conditions and ETF flows dominate the price far more than which party holds a committee chair.
What It Means for Crypto-Related Stocks
The equities most exposed to the regulatory outcome are the ones whose business models depend on it. Coinbase, the largest U.S. exchange, derives revenue from trading volumes, staking, custody and its institutional prime business — all sensitive to whether digital assets are treated as securities or commodities and to the cost of compliance. Marathon Digital and other miners are exposed through Bitcoin's price and energy policy. Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, and other corporate Bitcoin holders are leveraged to the spot price rather than to regulation directly.
Investors are already positioning for the regulatory risk. Reporting on Nov. 3 noted that traders are betting a Democratic sweep — taking both chambers — would tighten the regulatory stance on crypto and prediction markets and bring a wave of congressional scrutiny of Trump-linked crypto businesses and regulators' decisions. That pricing is why the regulatory discount is being applied to the equities even as Bitcoin holds near $77,000.
But the asymmetry runs the other way too. Because the agencies are writing the rules regardless, a divided government that delays legislation without reversing agency action is less damaging to the business model than the headline risk suggests. Coinbase's former SEC senior advisor VanGrack captured the industry's posture: "Regardless of who is elected in Congress, we're going to continue to see more regulatory clarity in this space."
The Cyclical Vote and the Structural Shift
This is the fork in the analysis. The election itself is a cyclical event: volatility around the vote, positioning ahead of results, and a historically favorable 12-month window for risk assets once the outcome is known. Those forces mean-revert. The post-midterm rally pattern is a liquidity and uncertainty-resolution trade, not a change in the cost of capital.
The structural shift is the relocation of crypto rulemaking from Congress to the agencies. That did not begin in 2026 and will not reverse with the midterms. The SEC's March 2026 token taxonomy, its August "Regulation Crypto Assets" proposal, and the CFTC's October retail-crypto rulemaking create a de facto framework that any 2027 Congress will inherit — and that any 2027 bill will have to reconcile rather than replace. The CLARITY Act's failure is not the end of crypto regulation; it is the moment the industry discovered it no longer needs Congress to get one.
The strongest counter-thesis is that a Democratic House could do real damage through oversight: subpoenas, hearings and appropriations riders can slow agency action, raise compliance costs and chill product launches even without passing a law. That risk is real for prediction markets and for firms operating in regulatory gray zones. The falsifying signal for the "agencies will drive clarity regardless" view is specific: if the SEC withdraws or materially narrows "Regulation Crypto Assets" after the January 2027 convening, or if the CFTC drops its retail-crypto rulemaking, then the structural-shift thesis is wrong and congressional control becomes the dominant variable again.
What to Watch
- Short term (days): election results and the balance of power. A Democratic sweep raises near-term regulatory-discount pressure on crypto equities; divided government limits legislative damage but keeps oversight hearings on the calendar.
- Medium term (first half of 2027): whether the 120th Congress refiles the CLARITY Act with ethics and stablecoin-yield fixes, and whether the SEC and CFTC finalize their 2026 proposals on schedule. Watch the SEC's rulemaking docket and the CFTC's comment process on retail crypto trading.
- Long term (2027-2029): the GENIUS Act's Jan. 18, 2027 effective date, which locks in the stablecoin regime regardless of election results, and the composition of the SEC — the one variable more consequential than the midterms for the durability of the agency-built framework.
Base case: divided government, a refilled CLARITY Act in 2027 with stronger ethics provisions, and agency rules taking effect alongside it. Upside case: Republican retention of both chambers speeds nominations and produces a 2027 bill closer to the September text. Downside case: a Democratic House uses oversight to stall agency action and injects DeFi and conflict-of-interest provisions that fracture the coalition that nearly passed the bill in September.
The election will decide who holds the gavel, but the gavel matters less than the rulebook being written in silence. After the CLARITY Act's collapse, the most consequential crypto legislation of this cycle is not on the ballot — it is in the Federal Register, and it takes effect whether anyone wins or loses.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
