Crypto-Backed Candidates Win Primaries in Three US States

Crypto-aligned political action committees (PACs) helped back multiple candidates in US congressional primaries on Tuesday, with several of those supported—spending more than $8 million in total on media in the races described—emerging as winners. The results set up new matchups for the November election and highlight how digital-asset interests are increasingly intersecting with mainstream electoral politics.

Fairshake and its affiliates were among the most active, according to disclosures referenced in the reporting. The PAC network, largely backed by major crypto companies including Coinbase and Ripple Labs, reported combined media spending of about $8 million to support candidates considered favorable to digital asset policy priorities in the next congressional session.

Key takeaways

• In New York, Democrat Ritchie Torres won the 15th district primary with 71.9% of the vote.
• In Utah, Republican Blake Moore won the 2nd district primary with 57.5% of the vote.
• Fairshake affiliate Protect Progress backed Maryland’s 5th district candidate Adrian Boafo, who won the Democratic primary with 32%.
• Not all “pro-crypto” backed candidates won, including Alex Bores in New York’s 12th district.
• Next statewide primary focus is expected to shift toward Colorado and Arizona, though no major additional spending by affiliates had been disclosed as of Wednesday.

Crypto-linked PAC spending shows up in primary results

Tuesday’s primaries for select US House and Senate races in Utah, Maryland, and New York produced wins for candidates aligned with crypto industry policy interests. One of the central players in the effort was Fairshake, a PAC and network of affiliates that has positioned itself as a key political vehicle for digital asset priorities.

According to the figures cited, the crypto-aligned PACs spent about $8 million on media across the relevant races. In New York, Ritchie Torres—supported by the described crypto-aligned efforts—secured victory in the state’s 15th congressional district primary, taking 71.9% of the vote. In Utah, Blake Moore won the Republican primary for the 2nd district with 57.5%.

Maryland offered a more closely contested outcome among the cited races. Protect Progress, a Fairshake affiliate, reported $5.5 million in expenditures supporting Adrian Boafo, who won the Democratic primary for Maryland’s 5th district with 32% against other candidates described as opposed to “spending from crypto billionaires.”

Fairshake spokesperson Geoff Vetter said the group “went big and we went early,” adding that the campaign aimed to move Boafo “from fifth place to the halls of Congress.”

Reporting also notes that Fairshake previously described having “$150 million cash on hand” in June, after earlier spending connected to state primary efforts. That prior activity included a separate round of spending referenced in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph, underscoring the PAC’s pattern of deploying resources well before election deadlines.

Where the money could matter most

The primary results matter for more than just individual contests. They reflect a strategy: using targeted advertising to shape which candidates advance to November in districts where crypto policy could become a campaign issue. PACs such as Fairshake have framed their efforts around sending lawmakers viewed as “pro-crypto,” aiming to influence legislative direction in the next Congress.

In addition to Fairshake and Protect Progress, other crypto-aligned PACs referenced as having reported support for 2026 candidates included Fellowship—backed by Cantor Fitzgerald and Anchorage Digital—and the Blockchain Leadership Fund, described as a hybrid PAC backed by Anchorage and Chainlink Labs. Together, these groups illustrate that crypto political spending is not concentrated in a single committee.

The June cash figure cited for Fairshake suggests the network has continued financial capacity to remain active beyond a single election cycle, and Tuesday’s wins may encourage further investment in competitive contests.

Some backed candidates still fell short

While several candidates aligned with crypto industry interests won Tuesday’s primaries, the picture was not uniform. Alex Bores, a Democrat running in New York’s 12th district, lost the primary to Micah Lasher.

According to the reporting, Bores faced criticism from Lasher during a June debate. Lasher alleged that Bores may have benefited from Ripple Labs co-founder Chris Larsen spending $3.5 million to support his campaign. That exchange illustrates a political tension often found in high-spending races: even when PAC-aligned candidates are competitive, opponents may attempt to shift the narrative toward donor influence and away from policy substance.

For voters, these dynamics can become a decisive factor in how campaigns are framed—especially when digital asset-related money is already in the spotlight.

Looking ahead to Colorado and Arizona primaries

Attention is expected to move to upcoming primaries in Colorado and Arizona. The reporting indicates that Colorado is scheduled for June 30 and Arizona for July 21. Fairshake affiliates had not disclosed significant spending in any races as of Wednesday, according to the account.

That timing is important. It suggests that crypto-aligned PACs may be pacing their media spending to target later or more competitive windows—or waiting for clearer signals about which candidates need reinforcement. Still, the absence of disclosed spending so far does not rule out later investment closer to those dates.

The report also contextualizes Fairshake’s prior activity in those states. In 2024, the PAC and affiliates reportedly spent more than $10 million in Arizona to support Ruben Gallego’s Senate race, and about $2.1 million to support Democratic Representative Yadira Caraveo in Colorado’s 8th district. Gallego ultimately won, while Caraveo lost in the November 2024 election to Republican Gabe Evans.

With that background, upcoming Colorado and Arizona primaries may serve as a test of whether earlier spending patterns translate into similar success—or whether PAC strategy shifts in response to local dynamics and candidate field changes.

As the next primary dates approach, readers should watch for new disclosures of PAC expenditures and for how candidates in Colorado and Arizona respond to crypto-related campaign narratives—particularly whether the same “early and aggressive” ad strategy credited in Tuesday’s races repeats or evolves.