Crypto Advocacy Group Releases US Congress Candidates Ahead of Midterms

Stand With Crypto, the industry-aligned advocacy group launched by Coinbase in 2023 to push for what it describes as “clear, common-sense regulations,” has unveiled a slate of political endorsements ahead of the next congressional session. The organization says it is backing candidates across key Senate and House races that it believes could shape how US lawmakers handle digital-asset legislation.

Bloomberg Government News reported that Stand With Crypto plans to support Senate candidates running in 2026, including Ohio Republican Jon Husted, Iowa Republican Ashley Hinson, and New Hampshire Democrat Chris Pappas. The announcements come amid ongoing uncertainty around whether Democrats can regain control of either chamber of Congress in 2027, a factor that could determine what happens to major bills affecting crypto market structure.

Key takeaways

• Stand With Crypto is endorsing Senate candidates for 2026, including Jon Husted (Ohio), Ashley Hinson (Iowa), and Chris Pappas (New Hampshire), according to Bloomberg Government News.
• The group is also backing House candidates, naming Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa) and Shomari Figures (Alabama), among others.
• Momentum for the CLARITY Act remains a political flashpoint after the US Senate failed to advance it through a cloture motion earlier this month.
• Crypto-linked political spending is already active, with Fairshake committing to major expenditures in the Ohio Senate race and spending more broadly by mid-year.

Why Stand With Crypto is making endorsements now

Stand With Crypto’s picks reflect a strategy of aligning electoral outcomes with regulatory priorities. The organization’s stated focus includes support for the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a crypto market-structure bill that has moved unevenly through Congress.

Earlier coverage noted that the CLARITY measure failed to secure enough support in the Republican-controlled Senate after passing the House with bipartisan backing in 2025. In response to that failure, Stand With Crypto warned lawmakers who did not support the bill could face consequences, framing the moment as a high-stakes inflection point for future legislative direction.

The CLARITY Act and the Senate vote that set the tone

According to Stand With Crypto’s warning after the Senate’s Sept. 15 outcome, the inability to advance the bill would carry downstream effects for lawmakers. The group tied the issue directly to election dynamics, arguing that crypto policy is not just theoretical once votes are tallied.

The Senate’s earlier procedural setback matters because market-structure proposals typically require sustained coalition-building to progress from committee and chamber passage into law. With the CLARITY Act positioned as a top priority by the crypto policy community referenced in coverage, every procedural obstacle can shift both timing and bargaining power for follow-on legislation.

What remains uncertain is how quickly lawmakers will return to the same bill text—or whether they will pivot to alternative approaches—if the balance of power changes after the 2026 elections.

Endorsements and election control in 2027

Stand With Crypto’s announcement arrives against projections that Democrats may be poised to regain control of both the House and Senate in 2027. A shift in majority control could alter not only which bills move forward, but also how aggressively leaders prioritize crypto-focused regulation.

Bloomberg Government News reported the group is backing Senate candidates in 2026 who span party lines and states. The endorsements include Republican Jon Husted in Ohio, Republican Ashley Hinson in Iowa, and Democrat Chris Pappas in New Hampshire. On the House side, the same reporting says Stand With Crypto endorsed Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks in Iowa and Democrat Shomari Figures in Alabama.

These endorsements also highlight a broader tension in Washington: while crypto policy advocates argue for regulatory clarity, procedural failures in one chamber can stall negotiations across the entire legislative pipeline. The election, in this sense, becomes a mechanism for shaping the legislative agenda rather than simply choosing representatives.

How crypto political spending is already shaping races

The backdrop for the endorsements includes substantial political activity from crypto-related groups. Cointelegraph previously reported that some candidates have already received significant funding ahead of the midterms, with money flowing through political action committees (PACs) and direct campaign contributions.

In the Ohio Senate race—where Stand With Crypto’s reported endorsement focuses on Jon Husted—Fairshake has been among the most prominent spenders. Cointelegraph reported that Fairshake pledged to initially spend $30 million supporting Husted against Democrat Sherrod Brown. The same reporting cited additional national spending, stating Fairshake spent $82 million on candidates across the country as of June, and that the organization has received backing from entities including Coinbase, Ripple Labs, and Andreessen Horowitz.

Stand With Crypto Executive Director Mason Lynaugh told Cointelegraph that there was “isn’t any evidence that crypto industry organizations are able to buy any assurances of who will win a race.” He attributed the organization’s endorsement of Husted to Husted’s vote in favor of the CLARITY Act, which he described as the industry’s “top policy priority,” rather than to broader assumptions about election influence.

Lynaugh also pointed to Brown’s earlier role in the Senate Banking Committee, characterizing it as influential in shaping crypto policy outcomes. At the same time, he said Brown’s more recent remarks about crypto’s role in the national economy were encouraging, while maintaining that endorsement decisions are grounded in voting records.

What to watch next

As Congress approaches another election cycle, investors, developers, and market participants should watch whether the endorsements translate into renewed momentum for market-structure legislation like CLARITY—especially if shifts in congressional control change which bills get prioritized and how quickly stalled proposals return to the floor.