Key Notes
- Reuters tracked more than $56 million in political giving by crypto-linked executives.
- Its figures cover the 2025–2026 election cycle.
- Super PAC funding follows different rules from direct candidate donations.
Crypto-linked executives have contributed more than $56 million during the 2025–2026 US election cycle, according to a Reuters analysis of federal filings.
Its count includes candidates, parties, PACs and some affiliated entities. Undisclosed political nonprofits and routine joint-fundraising transfers are excluded.
Selected Donors in Reuters’ Review
| Donor | Company | Reported contributions |
|---|---|---|
| Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss | Gemini | Nearly $13 million each |
| Chris Larsen | Ripple | At least $14.6 million |
| Mike Novogratz | Galaxy Digital | At least $1.9 million |
| Brian Armstrong | Coinbase | About $1 million |
The twins mostly backed MAGA Inc; Larsen favored Democratic-aligned groups. Armstrong split his giving roughly evenly between the parties.
Larsen is Ripple’s co-founder and executive chairman. Reuters also names Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, Chris Dixon, Matt Huang and Charles Cascarilla.
Why PAC Funding Differs From Candidate Donations
The Federal Election Commission’s guidance distinguishes super PACs from candidate campaigns. These independent-expenditure committees may accept unlimited contributions from individuals, companies and other permitted sources to finance independent political activity.
They cannot use that money to make direct contributions to federal candidates or to coordinate communications with them. A donor’s payment to a super PAC therefore should not be described as the same amount being deposited into a candidate’s campaign account.
Direct candidate contributions operate under separate limits. For the 2025–2026 federal cycle, an individual may give $3,500 per election to a candidate committee. A primary and a general election count separately for that purpose.
There is also a difference between raising funds and spending them on election activity. A contribution enters a recipient committee’s accounts; later advertising or other independent spending is a separate transaction. Adding both stages together would not measure fresh donations.
Market-Structure Legislation Remains Unfinished
The policy backdrop includes the Senate’s September 15 procedural vote on the CLARITY Act. Senators voted 49–50 on ending debate over the motion to proceed, falling short of the required three-fifths majority.
That stopped the bill from advancing at that stage. It was not a final vote on passage. The measure seeks a federal framework for digital-asset markets and responsibilities for the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
CoinScreamer’s earlier Fairshake coverage examined the crypto super PAC network’s support for House candidates. That outside campaign activity is one channel through which industry supporters participate in elections.
Our separate lobbying report covered spending aimed at influencing legislation and policy. Lobbying expenses, contributions to political committees and independent campaign advertising describe different activities and should be assessed separately.
Disclaimer: CoinScreamer is an independent media brand owned and operated by NuvexMedia LLC, publishing news, research, and market insights on digital assets and related technologies. NuvexMedia LLC invests in and collaborates with companies across the digital asset, blockchain, and technology sectors. These relationships do not influence CoinScreamer’s editorial coverage, and the publication maintains full editorial independence to provide accurate, timely, and objective information. © 2025 NuvexMedia LLC. All rights reserved. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, tax, investment, financial, or other professional advice.
