Crypto Super PAC to Spend $1.5M to Defeat Texas Democrat Over Anti‑Crypto Votes
Protect Progress, an affiliate of the crypto super PAC Fairshake, will spend $1.5 million in the March Democratic primary to oppose U.S. Rep. Al Green after he voted against two stablecoin and crypto market bills — the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act — in the House Financial Services Committee. The PAC and advocacy groups say Green’s votes harm Texas’s crypto ecosystem; Stand With Crypto labels him “strongly against crypto.” His challenger, Christian Menefee, is rated “strongly supports crypto” and has promoted practical blockchain uses such as on‑chain property records to fight deed fraud. The primary is March 3 (general election Nov. 3). The move follows broader Fairshake political activity — the network reportedly spent roughly $130 million in 2024 and an affiliate backed pro‑crypto Republican Barry Moore with $5 million — and underscores continued heavy crypto lobbying ahead of midterms. For traders, the development highlights ongoing political pressure to clarify stablecoin regulation: clearer rules could reduce regulatory uncertainty that some industry voices say weighs on BTC and broader market sentiment. Expect targeted independent expenditures (ads, outreach) to remain a vehicle for industry influence without direct campaign coordination.
Neutral
Impact on crypto prices from this specific political spending is likely neutral. The $1.5M independent expenditure targets a single House primary race and signals continued lobbying pressure for clearer stablecoin rules — a policy outcome traders care about — but it does not itself change regulation or market fundamentals. Short-term: expect modest information-driven volatility around political news cycles, headlines, and campaign ad releases, which can affect sentiment-driven flows in BTC and altcoins. Long-term: if such political pressure contributes to clearer, pro‑crypto stablecoin regulation, that could be bullish by reducing regulatory risk and improving on‑ramp stability; conversely, concentrated fights and polarized lawmaking could prolong uncertainty. Given the scale (PAC spending vs. national market) and absence of immediate regulatory change, the direct price effect should be limited, making the net classification neutral.