Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), a 30-year congressional veteran and one of the most vocal crypto critics on Capitol Hill, has advanced to the November general election in California’s 32nd Congressional District, setting up a rematch with pro-crypto Republican Larry Thompson—the same opponent he defeated by more than 32 points in 2024.
The result, called by the Associated Press with more than half the vote counted, ended progressive Democratic challenger Jake Levine’s high-profile bid to unseat Sherman by hammering the incumbent’s three-decade tenure. The race now becomes a quieter but more analytically interesting question for the crypto industry: with a war chest exceeding $193 million heading into the 2026 midterms, does it make any strategic sense for crypto super PACs to spend against Sherman?
A Critic on Every CLARITY Vote
Sherman has been one of the crypto industry’s most reliable opponents in Congress for years. Tracked by the Stand With Crypto Alliance as “very anti-cryptocurrencies,” he voted against advancing pro-crypto legislation, including the CLARITY Act, and has consistently framed the digital asset industry as a vehicle for tax evasion and illicit finance.
In recent months, Sherman has joined fellow Financial Services Committee Democrat Maxine Waters in documenting at least 12 SEC enforcement actions that were dismissed or closed since early 2024, pointing to what the lawmakers described as a “troubling correlation” between the closures and the industry’s political spending. Former SEC enforcement attorneys publicly noted that the scale of dismissals was unusual given the evidence the agency had assembled in several cases.
Sherman has also tied crypto directly to Trump-family enrichment concerns, posting that “the richest and most powerful in America are now trying to figure out how to give money to Trump’s favorite political operatives and family members — possibly by transferring Bitcoin through secret crypto wallets or making large purchases of Trump’s own crypto coins.”
His positioning makes him a textbook Fairshake target. But the math on CA-32 is the problem.
The District Is the Problem
California’s 32nd Congressional District has a Cook Partisan Voter Index of D+17, making it the 79th most Democratic congressional district in the country. The district covers some of Los Angeles County’s most affluent neighborhoods—Beverly Hills, Bel-Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Sherman Oaks, Studio City, and the western San Fernando Valley.
Sherman has held versions of this seat since 1997. In the 2024 general election, he defeated Larry Thompson 66.2% to 33.8% — a 32.4-point margin. That came in the same cycle in which crypto super PAC Fairshake spent over $130 million across 58 House and Senate races, achieving an 85% win rate, and successfully helped unseat Senate Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown in Ohio in one of its most high-profile victories.
Fairshake spent money where it could plausibly affect outcomes. CA-32, even with $40 million in opposition spending, would have been an extreme outlier on the cost-per-vote calculus.
What Crypto PACs Actually Do With Money
The strategic question now facing Fairshake and its affiliates is whether 2026 changes that math at all. Recent activity suggests the industry’s approach has been deliberate and targeted, not blanket.
In May, the Blockchain Leadership Fund launched as a new crypto industry PAC focused on bipartisan support for pro-crypto candidates, including Jon Husted in Ohio’s special election and Angie Craig in Minnesota’s competitive Senate primary. Earlier in May, Fairshake and Tether-backed Fellowship PAC went 6-for-6 in Texas runoffs, with Fairshake stating after the defeat of Rep. Al Green that “anti-crypto hostility carries real electoral consequences.”
But all of those races were either swing seats, open primaries, or contests where the crypto-aligned candidate had a realistic path to victory. Fairshake’s strategic logic has consistently been about maximum impact per dollar—spending where the marginal vote moves the outcome, not in lopsided general elections where the dominant party is structurally guaranteed to win.
The 2024 Sherrod Brown example is instructive. Brown was a vulnerable Democratic senator in Ohio, a state Trump had won by 8 points in 2020 and would win again by 11 in 2024. The race was close, the swing was achievable, and Fairshake’s $40 million made a marginal difference. CA-32 has none of those characteristics.
What a Strategic Spend Could Look Like
There are still arguments for some level of crypto PAC engagement in CA-32, even if outright victory is unrealistic.
The first is signal. Even modest spending against Sherman — independent expenditures on advertising tying him to anti-innovation positions, for example — would reinforce the industry’s broader messaging that opposing crypto carries political costs. The strategic value isn’t winning CA-32; it’s signaling to other Democrats in safer districts that crypto critics get attention.
The second is force concentration. If Sherman is reelected and remains a senior voice on the House Financial Services Committee, his ability to shape regulatory hearings, mark up legislation, and serve as a media voice against the industry continues. Diminishing his margins, even by a few points, could weaken his standing within the Democratic caucus on crypto issues.
The third is asymmetric warfare. Crypto industry PACs have substantially more money than the average House race requires. Deploying a few million dollars against Sherman costs Fairshake very little relative to its total resources but forces Sherman to defend his record publicly and spend campaign time on crypto-related messaging he might otherwise prefer to avoid.
The counterargument is opportunity cost. Every dollar spent against Sherman in CA-32 is a dollar not spent in a race where it could plausibly flip a seat or expand the pro-crypto coalition.
The Bigger Picture
The Sherman-Thompson rematch arrives as the industry’s political infrastructure has reached unprecedented scale. Total industry political spending in the 2024 cycle exceeded $271 million, with Fairshake alone holding $193 million in cash heading into 2026. Ripple alone donated $25 million to Fairshake in November 2024 specifically for the 2026 midterms.
That financial firepower has fundamentally changed the political calculus for lawmakers considering opposition to crypto legislation. The Brown defeat in 2024 made that message concrete. The question now is whether the industry chooses to apply that pressure broadly—including in races it cannot win—or strategically—concentrating resources only where outcomes are in play.
Larry Thompson’s general election position gives the industry a credible vehicle if it chooses to spend. He is pro-crypto, accepts Bitcoin donations, and ran a competitive campaign against Sherman in 2024. But the structural barriers in CA-32 are real, and no amount of independent expenditure spending can change the district’s underlying composition.
For now, Sherman heads into November as a heavy favorite to extend his tenure to 32 years in Congress. Whether he does so under sustained crypto industry attack — or whether the industry quietly concludes that CA-32 is not worth the spend — will tell us a lot about how Fairshake and its peers think about the limits of their political model heading into the 2028 cycle.
Also Read: Crypto PACs Reshape US Elections: Trump’s Pro-Crypto Agenda Takes Shape
