Gallego previously voted to advance the CLARITY bill in the Senate Banking Committee but made it clear that this vote does not guarantee final support. He has previously joined Democrats like Alsobrooks in calling for the inclusion of restrictions on officials' profits from digital assets and publicly criticized the White House and the Republican negotiation version for giving too much operational space to the president.

In terms of capital pathways, the crypto industry is providing Gallego with about $10 million in support through a super PAC for 2024, prompting him to shift from a progressive member of the House to a key member of the digital assets subcommittee, while maintaining fundraising connections with investors like Andreessen to push for market structure legislation in exchange for regulatory clarity.

Similar cases can be seen in the negotiations of the Dodd-Frank Act in the 2010s, where some Democrats accepted limited ethical provisions under banking lobbying but still demanded state-level enforcement powers. Currently, CLARITY is at the end of its regulatory framework expansion, shifting focus from classification to conflict of interest control.

Essentially, this is a regulatory change, with the mechanism being that the president's family has achieved over $1 billion in related income through crypto business, forcing legislation to redistribute power between federal enforcement monopolies and state-level parallelism, or it will not be able to surpass the 60-vote threshold.

ABAB News · Cognitive Law

The looser the ethical provisions, the longer the legislative negotiations.
Regulatory clarity = lobbying funds × partisan fractures.
The greater the president's profits, the harder cross-party transactions become.