Poll Shows Voters Distrust Crypto and AI as Super PAC Spending Rises
A Politico poll found most Americans distrust both crypto and AI amid heavy super PAC spending in the 2026 US midterms. The Public First survey for Politico reported that 45% of Americans say investing in cryptocurrency is not worth the risk, while 44% say AI is developing too fast. It also found that nearly half trust a traditional bank more than a crypto platform, and two-thirds want Congress to impose strict regulations or broad oversight for AI.
The results raise the risk of voter backlash against candidates funded by industry-aligned super PACs. In hypothetical matchups, respondents were less likely to support candidates backed by groups pushing looser AI regulation than those backed by tighter tech rules. The poll was conducted April 11–14 with 2,035 US adults online, weighted by age, race, gender, geography and education (±2.2% margin of sampling error).
Key spending figures underscore the political scale: Pro-AI super PAC Leading the Future (launched Aug 2025) raised over $75 million and deployed funds in primaries across North Carolina, Texas, Illinois and New York. Pro-crypto PAC Fairshake, backed by Coinbase, Andreessen Horowitz and Ripple Labs, spent about $28 million in competitive primaries. A Fairshake-affiliated PAC spent over $40 million in 2024 to help defeat Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown.
For now, awareness is low: only 9% have heard of Leading the Future and just 3% recognize Fairshake, but observers warn backlash could accelerate if voters link the money to the industries behind it. The crypto industry is also pushing the CLARITY Act for regulatory certainty.
Bearish
The news is mainly a sentiment and political-risk signal for crypto. A majority of voters distrust both crypto and AI, and the poll suggests that linking industry-backed super PAC spending to candidates could trigger voter backlash. That increases the probability of tougher scrutiny or less predictable US policy outcomes around crypto and AI—factors that can weigh on risk appetite.
In the short term, traders may price this as a headline risk: uncertainty around regulation and election narratives can cause volatility, even if no direct market mechanics changed. In the longer term, heavy campaign spending without public trust often turns into regulatory and political pressure, similar to past cycles where politicized messaging around crypto led to abrupt sentiment shifts ahead of policy votes.
While pro-crypto fundraising and lobbying show the sector’s political influence is growing, the core takeaway is that crypto-linked campaign activity may face a credibility discount from voters. That typically translates to a more cautious stance toward crypto beta until policy clarity improves—hence a bearish bias rather than a neutral one.