Presidential debates cover the issues that polling shows are most important – immigration, healthcare, the economy, climate change, and more. So why was crypto not mentioned even once?
Neither the American public nor the two presidential candidates care very much about crypto, and the debate showed that. Despite the industry narrative becoming increasingly partisan, many voters are looking past the simple fact that those outside the fishbowl simply don’t care; and it’s blinding those inside it to a simple fact.
For the most part, politicians tend to care more about remaining in office than anything else – regardless of party – hopefully, most rational people can likely at least agree on that. It takes a certain type of person, and ego, to want to hold elected office, and that type of individual is often reluctant to give up the stage once they ascend onto it. Biden’s long refusal to recuse himself from this election cycle is a prime example.
In order to stay in office, politicians need donations.
Yes, Donald Trump did attend and speak at this year’s Bitcoin 2024 conference, in Nashville. He did make lofty promises, and he did spectacularly claim that “all Bitcoins should be made in the U.S.” But, guess what? That doesn’t mean it is actually a pressing concern.
His sole purpose for being there was a fundraising dinner in which he charged attendees as much as $844,600 per person for a literal seat at the table with him – the maximum campaign donation allowed under law. Other attendees paid $60,000 just for a picture with the former president. By comparison, a Kamala Harris’ San Francisco fundraising dinner not long after the Nashville event charged attendees anywhere from $3,300 to $50,000 to attend, and netted her $12 million.
If you think that’s a lot, just you wait. This industry has gone to incredible lengths to seek the relevance it craves.
Since the Citizens United ruling in 2010, which paved the way for the creation for Super PACs (political action committees that take donations on behalf of candidates), only one industry has outspent crypto in terms of trying to garner influence in government, according to a recent analysis of campaign donations from the non-profit Public Citizen.
Since 2010, fossil fuel corporations have poured $176 million into political donations, including $73 million from Koch Industries – seen by many as the very symbol of dark money buying elections. This year alone, Koch has contributed nearly $30 million to the election cycle through two Super PACs, and no one else even in close – except for crypto.
The digital assets industry has donated a staggering $119 million into this election cycle, nearly half of all corporate donations in 2024, which total $248 million so far. This is roughly the same amount that the Senate Leadership Fund, a GOP-affiliated Super PAC that takes money from fossil fuel, tobacco, firearms, and for-profit prison corporations has received since 2014.
The next closest Super PAC to Fairshake, in terms of donations this year is the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity Action PAC, which has received $26 million in total.
When you consider that corporate crypto donations have surpassed $129 million in the past three election cycles, amounting to 15% of all corporate donations since the Citizens United ruling, and that a staggering 92% of them have come this year, it’s no wonder politicians have all of a sudden started to speak to this audience.
Many in the crypto industry are firm advocates of community, narrative and meme-ability. To them, Trump is the perfect candidate. And they likely believe that throwing money at the right meme will take their concerns directly to the White House. To the political stratosphere. But, it won’t.
“The crypto ‘voting block’ is not voters but donors,” Nick Beauchamp, associate professor of political science at Northeastern University, when he spoke to the school newspaper. “Crypto appears on almost no one’s list of important issues, and most people are either unaware of it, or have rudimentary opinions.”
“However, there are a number of crypto-associated donors who care very much, and these people are the only reason that the campaigns are making crypto statements, and probably the only reason many Republicans and some Democrats like Chuck Schumer are resisting regulation,” he added.
Politicians see crypto as donors rather than voters – I hope some of you are seeing this.
Many well-respected founders have greatly harmed their reputations this year through political ranting and raving aimed at rallying support for one candidate over another. Though it is their right to do so, one has to wonder how they’ll feel about their actions (and their consequences) years from now.
If any of the individuals in the space pledging to be “single-issue voters,” believing one candidate better supports blockchain and digital assets over the other, took a step away from social media for five minutes, inhaled a deep breath, and remembered who they were before falling down the Bitcoin Rabbit Hole, they might make a more rational choice over who to vote for – regardless of the candidate they pick.
No matter how much this industry tries to buy influence, it will not change a simple fact – crypto is growing, but its path to mainstream relevance still remains quite long and winding – and the debate has shown that once again.
Note: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc. or its owners and affiliates.
