A Politico poll conducted April 11-14 reveals a stark disconnect: while crypto and AI super PACs deploy tens of millions into the 2026 midterm elections, 45% of Americans say cryptocurrency investing is not worth the risk and two-thirds want strict AI regulations. The survey of 2,035 US adults, with a ±2.2 percentage point margin of error, exposes a potential liability for candidates backed by these industries, even as Fairshake and Leading the Future accelerate spending across competitive primaries.
Public Distrust Deepens as Super PACs Scale Up
Fairshake has already spent $28 million in primary races, building on a $40 million campaign that helped defeat Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown in 2024. Leading the Future, the pro-AI super PAC launched in August 2025, has raised $75 million and entered the race to influence candidate selection. Yet voter awareness of these groups remains minimal: only 9% recognize Leading the Future and just 3% know Fairshake by name. The disconnect matters. Jim Renacci, former Ohio Representative, warned that candidate association with crypto backing “is always going to be a problem” with voters. Politico’s analysis notes that “skepticism of the industries could turn into voter backlash if Americans grow fed up with the heavy spending.”
Regulatory Pressure and Industry Lobbying Intensify
The spending surge coincides with record lobbying expenditures. OpenAI and Anthropic posted record Q1 2026 lobbying spending, while crypto industry figures push the CLARITY Act for regulatory certainty in Congress. The dual strategy—super PAC spending plus direct legislative advocacy—reflects industry urgency to shape regulatory outcomes before the 2026 midterms. Yet the industries face headwinds: nearly 50% of Americans trust traditional banks more than crypto platforms, and 44% believe AI is developing too fast. Backers of Fairshake include Coinbase, Andreessen Horowitz, and Ripple Labs. Leading the Future counts OpenAI and Anthropic among its supporters.
Backlash Risk in Competitive Races
Both super PACs are deploying capital across competitive primaries in North Carolina, Texas, Illinois, and New York. The strategy targets races where endorsements and spending can shift outcomes. However, the low awareness figures suggest a vulnerability: voters may not yet connect candidates to industry funding. But once that connection registers, political observers warn backlash could accelerate. The 2024 cycle proved crypto spending could move races. Whether 2026 proves different depends on whether voter skepticism translates into active opposition to industry-backed candidates.
Next Test: Primary Season Messaging
The industries face a timing problem. Voter distrust is already baked in before the campaign messaging begins. Primary elections will test whether heavy spending can overcome public skepticism or whether candidates face voter pushback for accepting super PAC money. The May 3 publication of Politico’s findings itself signals risk: media coverage of industry spending may accelerate voter awareness and backlash before November 2026.
