Unprecedented sums are being spent on Democratic primaries, reshaping races while keeping their policy agendas largely out of public view.
People gather outside of the Supreme Court Building to protest Citizens United in 2019.(Caroline Brehman / Getty)
In Democratic primaries across the country, three special interests have been shelling out tens of millions to defeat progressives and help elect centrists who they think will back their policy agendas in Congress. The trifecta of spending groups represent the crypto and AI industries plus the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, and in race after race they have been aligned to help the centrists push back against progressive insurgents.
The 2026 midterms are projected by AdImpact to be the most expensive ever for ad spending, outdoing even the last presidential cycle, and the three interests are fueling the surge. Super PACs working on behalf of crypto, AI, and AIPAC donors are the highest-spending groups on independent expenditures to influence voters this cycle—combining to spend more than $180 million so far, according to a review of Federal Election Commission records.
The super PAC largesse goes into media buys, digital ads, direct mail, text messages and more supporting favored candidates and attacking rivals—but the policy wish list of their funders remains mostly opaque to voters. In both Democratic and Republican races, ads from crypto, AI, and AIPAC-linked groups usually avoid mention of their donors’ core issues, whether decentralized finance, deregulating AI, or military aid to the government of Israel. To Democratic voters, the interest groups’ messages often blare that candidates will stand up to Trump; to Republicans, the AI super PACs tout President Trump’s endorsement. The three interests include top donors to Trump’s super PAC, such as OpenAI President Greg Brockman and his wife, Anna, who gave MAGA Inc. $25 million and the same amount to the AI super PAC Leading the Future.
Each of the three interests faces major legislative battles in Congress, either in the packed few months before the midterms or to be taken up by the next class of lawmakers. Last cycle marked the debut of outsize spending by crypto group Fairshake to knock out lawmakers like former Senate Banking Committee chair Sherrod Brown. They were joined by AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), which ramped up its spending to unseat progressives like Representative Cori Bush; this cycle, they’re joined by tech giants in AI.
Of the three interests, AIPAC-tied groups have spent the most so far in the 2026 cycle to influence voters in Democratic races for House and Senate, often using a strategy of seeding pop-up super PACs that delay disclosure of their funding sources until after Election Day. In Illinois primaries in March, three secretive super PACs with names like Elect Chicago Women (ECW) that were bankrolled by UDP spent over $16.1 million to influence voters without publicly disclosing their donors before voters cast their ballots.
“What we’ve learned is that candidates need to confront the dark money spending head on,” said Ravi Mangla, press secretary of the progressive Working Families Party (WFP). “When voters learn where the money is coming from, the attacks tend to backfire. The AIPAC brand has become extremely toxic—especially in Democratic primaries. AIPAC knows this too, which is why they’re funneling their spending through shell PACs.”
AIPAC’s spending deluge has not always resulted in wins for their preferred candidates: many progressives have prevailed or advanced in primaries, including Randy Villegas in CA-22 and now-Representative Analilia Mejia in NJ-11, whose special election win in February presaged the progressive gains this year. But in other races, a massive outside spending edge provided by the interests helped centrists defeat a progressive endorsed by WFP or the group Justice Democrats (JD).
And AIPAC continues to unload on the airwaves: three weeks before the closely-contested Aug. 4 Senate primary in Michigan, moderate Representative Haley Stevens has a 23x outside spending edge over WFP-endorsed Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, counting at least $19.7 million in disclosed spending by UDP and $14.6 million more from the mysterious group A Stronger Michigan.
“We’re in a populist moment and, fortunately, many of AIPAC and crypto’s candidates are falling short in their races,” Mangla said. “But if we’ve learned anything, it’s that these groups will overhaul their strategies to remain relevant.”
Crypto Onslaught Continues
Cryptocurrency industry groups have combined to spend $69.9 million so far this cycle at the federal level, over half of that in Democratic races, according to a review of FEC data. Spending has been led by Fairshake, whose top funders are aligned with the Trump administration in pressing for a crypto-favorable regulatory regime.
With the midterm elections now firmly upon us, the question is whether Democratic candidates will do more than merely occupy ballot lines as mild alternatives to the red-hot crisis that is Donald Trump.
As Trump spends over $1 billion a day on a globally destabilizing war on Iran and admits that he doesn’t “think about Americans’ financial situation,” millions across the country are struggling with the surging costs of essentials. Democrats must seize this moment and advance bold, small-“d” populist ideas—not settle for cynical caution that once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Nation elevates progressive ideas, movements, and elected officials achieving real change across the country into the national conversation. At the same time, our journalists are exposing how crypto and AI-funded super PACs are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to knock out candidates they oppose, reporting on the devastating impact of the Supreme Court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, and sounding the alarm on attempts by red states to quickly redraw electoral maps, disenfranchising Southern Black voters.
We can play this critical role because of support from readers like you. This June, we’re raising $20,000 to power The Nation’s independent journalism in the run-up to November’s immensely consequential elections.
It’s in our power to build a more just society, and your support at this critical moment brings us closer to that bold vision. I hope you’ll donate today.
Onward,
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation
The crypto industry has racked up a series of victories after its unprecedented spending in 2024 elections: its championed stablecoin legislation, the GENIUS Act, signed into law; a slew of friendly regulators appointed; pro-crypto executive orders issued; and corporate enforcement actions against giants like Coinbase dropped. Now the crypto lobby is all-hands-on-deck to push another major market structure bill, the Clarity Act, through the Senate and reconcile it with House-passed versions—aiming to have it on President Trump’s desk before the August recess. Even if all Senate Republicans are united, at least seven votes from Democrats or independents would be needed for the Clarity Act, the crypto industry’s top legislative priority, to overcome a filibuster and advance to a floor vote.
Fairshake took a victory lap in May, calling itself the “difference-maker” in a Texas race by helping crypto-friendly Representative Christian Menefee, whose campaign site echoed industry language on blockchain “innovation,” to knock out crypto critic Representative Al Green, who voted against the GENIUS Act. Its Democratic-focused affiliate Protect Progress dropped a whopping $6.5 million supporting Menefee in the face-off between two sitting House members—making up nearly all of the outside spending in the race. Fairshake’s top funders include Coinbase, which formed the Stand With Crypto advocacy organization that issues scorecards to candidates on their support, and VC firm Andreessen Horowitz, whose Trump-allied cofounder Marc Andreessen is one of the largest known political donors this cycle.
Fairshake also stepped in to back a top crypto cheerleader, Representative Ritchie Torres in NY-15, the cofounder of the Congressional Crypto Caucus with House majority whip Tom Emmer (R-MN). Protect Progress spent $1.4 million supporting Torres, who cosponsored the House version of the Clarity Act. While the deep-pocketed Fairshake often backed incumbents who were likely to win their primaries, one of its largest plays, in a Senate primary, did not go its way: The group lost its highest-spending Democratic contest to date when Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton prevailed after it spent $10 million opposing her bid. Stratton, who had been tagged with an “F” from Stand With Crypto, assailed the “MAGA-backed crypto bros” behind the attack ads.
AI Joins the Fray
A set of super PACs funded by the artificial intelligence industry has spent more than $52.8 million so far in House and Senate contests, with nearly three-quarters going into Democratic races, according to FEC data. The AI spending has been led by two rival networks: the OpenAI-tied Leading the Future, which is pushing for federal preemption of state AI regulations; and the Anthropic-tied Public First Action, which bills itself as amenable to some AI safety measures. That sum includes spending by the group You Can Push Back, founded by billionaire crypto and Anthropic investor Chris Larsen, which has paid for ads on AI safety. The AI industry similarly faces major regulatory questions—likely to be taken up by the next Congress, given the tight calendar before the midterms—including pressure from the Trump administration to preempt AI safety measures that have become state laws in recent years.
The camps battled over the hugely expensive primary in NY-12, where the Public First affiliate Jobs and Democracy PAC dished out nearly $13.2 million backing New York State Assembly member Alex Bores, who lost by four points to Assemblyman Micah Lasher. Leading the Future affiliate Think Big spent more than $8 million opposing Bores in the contest, with some ads hitting Bores for his past work at Palantir—though Palantir’s cofounder Joe Lonsdale was an early $250,000 contributor to the network’s Republican arm, American Mission.
In the March 3 contest in NC-04 where Representative Valerie Foushee edged out the JD-endorsed Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam by one point, or 1,171 votes, the incumbent’s campaign was backed by more than $1.6 million from Public First’s affiliate Jobs and Democracy PAC. The Anthropic-tied group Public First Action opposes a federal preemption on AI regulations (a primary goal of Leading the Future), but Anthropic’s record in the states is more nuanced: in 2024, the company lobbied for changes to a far-reaching California AI safety bill that would have held companies liable for harms caused by their AI models. Foushee shapes AI policy as a co-chair of the House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy, as well as by chairing the Task Force on AI of the business-friendly New Democrat Coalition. In the campaign, where a proposed data center outside of Raleigh was a flashpoint, Allam had called for a 10-year national moratorium on data center construction until rules could be developed for the facilities to use recycled water and run on renewable electricity sources to avoid spiking energy costs. Foushee said that decisions on data centers should be made by local officials, not federal lawmakers.
AIPAC Increases Spending
UDP, its ally Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI), and a trio of shell PACs in Illinois including ECW have made independent expenditures totaling $57.6 million so far in federal races, the vast majority of it in Democratic primaries. Already, this amount from UDP and DMFI far exceeds what the two PACs combined to spend influencing voters in the entire 2024 cycle. Making its spending even more diffuse, UDP and DMFI have been sending large donations to handfuls of other groups, like EDW Action Fund, that back their preferred candidates—meaning the sum of AIPAC spending to message voters is many millions higher.
Get unlimited access: $9.50 for six months.
In an Illinois primary held in March, the three interests came together to help power centrist former representative Melissa Bean to a primary win over a field that included the JD-endorsed Junaid Ahmed, a difference of about five points, or 3,325 votes. Bean was backed by $4 million in support from UDP-funded ECW, more than $1.1 million from Think Big, and $557,000 from Protect Progress, among other groups like the New Democrat Majority. On top of that, Ahmed’s bid was opposed by $664,000 in spending by Chicago Progressive Partnership, a pop-up PAC funded largely by ECW. Counting all outside spending for the two candidates, Bean had a 43x advantage over Ahmed, according to a tally of FEC records. AIPAC congratulated Bean on her win against the tech entrepreneur Ahmed, who campaigned on a halt to military aid for Israel, focusing on what he called “the United States involvement in genocide in Gaza.”
For three terms starting in 2005, Bean was a member of the corporate-backed Blue Dog Coalition and was nicknamed as being among Wall Street’s favorite Democrats, thanks to her actions like introducing amendments in 2009 that would weaken bank regulation by states. Bean’s tilt toward well-off investors was well known: In 2006, she was one of 15 Democrats who crossed over to vote for a $70 billion tax cut, signed by President George W. Bush, extending a lower capital gains rate—a vote panned as “another windfall for the wealthy” by none other than Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel, also of Illinois. Ahmed’s campaign closed out the primary with a door-knocking push that highlighted the corporate money flooding into the eighth district’s race and others.
Across the city of Chicago, in the IL-02 primary, Donna Miller, a Cook County commissioner, defeated former US representative Jesse Jackson Jr. and the WFP-endorsed Illinois state Senator Robert Peters. The top outside spender was the UDP-funded Affordable Chicago Now!, which poured nearly $4.4 million into supporting Miller. Peters, who supported crypto regulation and had called out the industry’s heavy spending in the race, was also opposed by $817,000 from Fairshake. Peters’ outside spending support totaled under half a million dollars.
“The Illinois Second Congressional District is a working-class, Black district, and having these billionaire, right-wing donors coming and trying to buy up this scene is a real concern that we should all be worried about,” Peters told ABC7 News in March.
In the MD-05 primary on June 23, Maryland state Delegate Adrian Boafo, a former aide to retiring incumbent Representative Steny Hoyer, won in a field that included the WFP-endorsed former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who finished third. A flood of outside money rolled in to back Boafo, led by more than $5.7 million from UDP and over $5.5 million from Fairshake affiliate Protect Progress. Boafo introduced state legislation to shield crypto from regulation and wrote that he would strengthen the US-Israel alliance. The contest was the second consecutive primary where AIPAC’s super PAC has put millions of dollars behind one of Dunn’s opponents; his campaign website says that in addition to improving the long-standing alliance of US and Israel, Dunn would “stand up for Palestinian civilians and fight for humanitarian aid.”
Foushee’s narrow win over Allam was also backed by $600,000 from the mysterious Article One PAC, linked in FEC records to a committee funded by billionaire UDP donor Robert Granieri.
The barrage of election ads from anodyne-sounding super PACs in Democratic primaries is coming under some scrutiny: A Democratic National Committee panel, as instructed by Chair Ken Martin, is currently considering a rules change to the 2028 presidential nomination contest that would adopt enforceable steps to “eliminate unlimited corporate and dark money” in the process. But the DNC’s recommendations for its White House hopefuls would not yet directly address the super PACs now flooding congressional primaries—though state Democratic parties could set more control over their primary rules, such as by requiring candidates to repudiate dark money in order to access party resources. In some Democratic races, meanwhile, candidates like Troy Jackson in Maine picked up the voluntary “People’s Pledge,” whereby candidates agree to reject independent expenditures from corporate and dark money groups and encourage rivals to do the same.
David MooreDavid Moore is a cofounder of Sludge, an independent newsroom focused on money in politics. He is based in Brooklyn.