Poll: Americans distrust crypto and AI as PACs flood the midterms

Crypto and AI industry groups are channeling tens of millions of dollars into the 2026 U.S. midterm race as policymakers weigh new rules for digital assets and advancing artificial intelligence. A Politico report, drawing on a Public First survey conducted in April, sketches a landscape where voter skepticism toward both sectors could complicate campaign strategies for candidates accepting industry-linked support.

According to Politico, 45% of Americans say investing in cryptocurrency is not worth the risk, while 44% believe AI is developing too quickly. The same survey found that nearly half of respondents trust traditional banks more than crypto platforms, and about two-thirds want Congress to impose strict regulations or broad oversight on AI. The online poll surveyed 2,035 U.S. adults from April 11–14, with results weighted for age, race, gender, geography and education and a margin of sampling error of ±2.2 percentage points. Politico notes the findings were based on Public First’s methodology.

Key takeaways

• The two industry-aligned super PACs are spending aggressively ahead of the 2026 midterms: Leading the Future, a pro-AI group launched in August 2025, has raised more than $75 million and deployed funds in primaries across North Carolina, Texas, Illinois and New York; Fairshake, backed by Coinbase, Andreessen Horowitz and Ripple, has spent about $28 million in competitive races.
• Lobbying frenemies: both AI and crypto sectors are pouring resources into advocacy, with OpenAI and Anthropic posting record lobbying expenditures in the first quarter of 2026. Crypto policymakers are pushing the CLARITY Act through the Senate, a bill aimed at providing regulatory certainty for digital assets.
• Historical betting patterns: in 2024, Fairshake-affiliated groups spent more than $40 million helping defeat Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, a longtime crypto critic who is up for re-election, underscoring the persistent political battleground around digital assets.
• Voter recognition remains low: just 9% have heard of Leading the Future and 3% recognize Fairshake. Yet observers warn that once voters connect the money to the industries behind it, a backlash could emerge if spending is perceived as unduly influencing policy.

Money in politics: where the dollars flow

Funding dynamics are shifting political ground for technology policy. Leading the Future has moved quickly from launch to a substantial fundraising operation, financing AI-friendly messaging and endorsements in key swing districts. Fairshake, representing the crypto side of the policy debate, has targeted primaries and races where digital asset regulation remains a live issue. The scale of money on both sides signals a broader strategy: shape the regulatory narrative before substantive legislation gains traction in Congress.

Beyond campaign accounts, the lobbying footprint is expanding. The AI camp has been particularly active, with OpenAI and Anthropic reporting record lobbying expenditures in early 2026. In parallel, crypto advocates are pressing lawmakers for clarity on digital-asset rules through legislation such as the CLARITY Act, seeking a standardized framework that market participants can navigate with greater confidence.

The confluence of these efforts matters for investors and builders. Large infusion into political operations can tilt the regulatory debate, potentially accelerating or delaying key policy milestones. While the specific provisions of proposed bills remain under discussion, a clearer regulatory horizon could improve capital markets certainty for digital assets and related technologies.

Voter sentiment and policy expectations

Public attitudes toward crypto and AI appear to resist comfortable alignment with industry interests. The April survey indicates meaningful skepticism about both sectors: 45% view crypto as too risky to justify investment, and 44% feel AI is developing too fast. These percentages sit alongside a substantial demand for oversight: about two-thirds of respondents want Congress to impose strict regulations or broad oversight on AI. The data suggests that support for industry-backed candidates may hinge on perceived regulatory posture rather than broad enthusiasm for the sectors themselves.

Even more telling is how voters connect policy positions to funding sources. In hypothetical matchups, respondents were significantly less receptive to candidates backed by groups pushing looser AI regulations than to those supported by factions advocating tighter tech rules. That dynamic indicates that campaign finance could become a proxy for voters’ comfort with regulatory risk—particularly in districts where technology policy could influence local economic outcomes.

Public awareness remains a watchpoint. Only a small slice of voters recognize these industry groups by name, which means the political impact could be diffuse until money translates into messaging tied to concrete policy proposals. Still, observers caution that visible fundraising activity from crypto- and AI-linked PACs can become a liability if voters interpret it as undue influence in policy decisions.

Regulatory momentum and what to watch next

Regulatory questions sit at the heart of the current debate. Crypto advocates are pushing the CLARITY Act as a means to establish a practical, comprehensive framework for digital assets, aiming to reduce uncertainty that can impede innovation and market growth. AI stakeholders, meanwhile, seek balanced governance that protects consumers while encouraging innovation, reflected in the broad calls for oversight with clear guardrails. The divergence in policy priorities will likely shape committee discussions and potential bipartisan compromises in the coming months.

The political calculus also ties to broader market considerations. For investors, the evolving regulatory conversation could affect product development, fundraising, and strategic partnerships. For users, clearer rules may improve protections and transparency. For builders, regulatory clarity could unlock experimentation within defined boundaries, reducing the risk of abrupt regulatory shifts that disrupt deployment timelines.

Looking ahead, the Senate’s handling of proposed regulatory proposals—especially measures like the CLARITY Act—will be a key barometer. If lawmakers signal a credible path to clarity, markets may respond with greater confidence; if not, uncertainty could persist, preserving volatility around policy milestones and election cycles.

As the 2026 midterms approach, the relationship between political funding, regulatory discourse, and technology deployment remains a live stress test for the crypto and AI ecosystems. Watch how voters interpret the funding narratives, and how lawmakers convert campaign pressure into concrete policy language that shapes the sector for years to come.