Coinbase Founder Armstrong: About Five Weeks Until U.S. Midterm Elections, Crypto Is Not a Partisan Issue
Brian Armstrong stated that there are about five weeks until the U.S. midterm elections, emphasizing that crypto is not a partisan issue but rather whether next-generation financial technology will take root in the U.S.; voters should clarify candidates' positions before voting and refer to the Stand With Crypto candidate comparison page.
A survey released by the same advocacy organization around the 100-day mark indicated that nearly 80% of crypto holders are almost certain to vote, about 70% will consider candidates' positions on crypto when casting their ballots, 73% are monitoring which crypto policies legislators support, and 59% do not consistently vote for a single party.
Stand With Crypto, initiated by Coinbase, publicly claims that over 3 million advocates have registered, with the next target set for the 2026 midterms after the 2024 cycle. On August 24, 2026, the organization endorsed 32 incumbent representatives, with the criterion being their support in the House for the market structure bill, the Clarity Act.
The endorsement list includes members from both parties, such as Republicans Tom Emmer and Bill Huizenga, and Democrats Ritchie Torres and Josh Gottheimer, specifically naming several competitive districts. The Clarity Act has not yet made significant progress in the Senate and is viewed by the industry as a legislative priority this round.
Parallel to funding efforts is the super PAC Fairshake. Reports indicate that Coinbase injected $24.5 million into it, with Armstrong personally contributing an additional $1 million, which early on accounted for about one-third of the committee's then $85 million funding pool; Coinbase has made further commitments, and Ripple and Andreessen Horowitz are also increasing their investments during the same period.
Armstrong reframed the issue from left-right labels to industry location: clear regulations would keep clearing, custody, stablecoins, and issuance within the U.S. licensing system, while ambiguity would lead to business and talent outflow. During the 2024 cycle, the industry has participated in the election battle using similar narratives and has created a replicable template for removing anti-crypto legislators from office.
In market mechanisms, what is being bought is legislative windows and licensing premiums, while what is being sold is the discount from ongoing enforcement uncertainty. Funds are flowing from exchange profits, venture capital books, and political action committees into advertising, grassroots mobilization, and candidate rating tools; beneficiaries are centralized platforms that already hold U.S. licenses and need the Clarity Act to delineate the boundaries between the SEC and CFTC, while those under pressure are opponents betting campaign funds on delays or increased enforcement. The event-driven aspect comes from the five-week countdown, rather than daily on-chain traffic.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
After transforming Coinbase from a trading platform into a publicly listed company in the U.S., Armstrong's next phase of capital expenditure is clearly shifting towards Washington: first suing the SEC, then supporting both Fairshake and Stand With Crypto, one leg funding independent expenditures and the other maintaining a voter registry. The 2024 cycle has validated that "anti-crypto equals career risk" can be realized in individual Senate seats, with 2026 being the year to replicate the same machinery from the presidential year to the midterm elections.
The flow of money is not towards protocol treasuries, but rather to super PACs, advocacy organizations, and candidate scorecards. Exchange profits and venture capital investments are buying policy clarity as options: if the market structure bill passes the House but stalls in the Senate, the issuance, custody, and brokerage licenses within the U.S. will continue to be discounted; if it passes, compliance premiums will return to platforms that have secured state licenses and federal dialogue rights. This treats regulation as a capacity rather than viewing capacity as an adjunct to regulation.
Similar paths have emerged in ride-hailing, payments, and tobacco lobbying: first framing user scale as voter scale, then translating voter scale into legislative resistance costs. The industry phase has shifted from "survival litigation" to "locking in a congressional majority," with expansion and control overlapping, and bipartisan endorsements aimed at preventing a single party from overturning the rules.
Structural judgments pertain to regulatory changes. The mechanism is that the landing of financial technology is determined by jurisdictional competition; whoever can make "pro-crypto or not" a verifiable, mobilizable, and punishable label during the election cycle will price in the probability of passing the U.S. market structure bill, thereby pricing the valuation of exchanges and the clearing rights of stablecoins.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
A voter registry is a harder license than a lobbying letter.
Non-partisanship turns industry issues into unavoidable scorecards.
Where financial technology remains depends on which country writes its stance into the ballot.