Crypto Industry Weighs Costly Battle Against Brad Sherman
Well-known crypto-journalist Eleanor Terrett posted on X today, June 3, 2026 and stated that Rep. Brad Sherman, who is a vocal crypto critic, has secured a spot in California’s November general election. He will face Republican Larry Thompson in a rematch in the state’s 32nd Congressional District. Thompson, who accepted donations in Bitcoin during his 2024 campaign, finished ahead of Democrat Jake Clevine.
With Clevine’s defeat, the crypto advocates are now confused. These crypto advocates are now wondering if it is a good idea to continue spending on a Democratic district or shift their money to more competitive races.
Why This Race Matters to Crypto
Sherman is not a neutral lawmaker. For years he has led aggressive, usually alarmist efforts to regulate or curtail cryptocurrency activity, pushing for tighter enforcement, hostile legislation and public rhetoric that paints digital assets as conduits for wrongdoing. This history makes Sherman an obvious target for crypto-backed political groups and donors, who believe supporting elections can help weaken or stop anti-crypto policies in Congress.
On the other hand, the 32nd District is reliably Democratic. Sherman defeated Thompson by more than 30 points in 2024 and remains favored there. Here, winning a deeply Democratic seat in a midterm election would require a huge amount of spending, strong ground campaigns, and heavy messaging, all of this would make it an expensive gamble for crypto groups.
Calculating Political Return on Investment
For crypto PACs, the strategy remains simple: spend money where it can actually have an impact on the results of the election. Here, instead of pouring huge amounts into Sherman’s Democratic district, these funds could be used to protect pro-crypto lawmakers. These funds can also be used to support candidates in swing districts where smaller spending can have a big impact.
Political experts say spending huge amounts of money in districts that strongly support one party usually does not work very well.
In Democratic areas, most of the voters are convinced, and there is no point in spending money to get their own supporters to vote. Because of this, crypto PACs may prefer to spend money on tighter races where they have a better chance of winning, or on long-term efforts like building local support, finding candidates, and promoting crypto-friendly policies.
The Signalling Value of Spending
Spending money is not just about winning a seat, but it also shows lawmakers and voters that the crypto industry is in a way organized, active in politics and it is ready to support or oppose candidates. Even if Sherman keeps the seat, a major campaign against him could make harsh anti-crypto positions less attractive for other politicians. For some donors, sending that message alone is worth the cost.
At the same time, there is a risk involved. Heavy spending by crypto groups in local California politics could create backlash, with opponents portraying the race as outside industry money versus a local representative. But if the crypto advocates shift their focus on things such as jobs, fintech growth, and better payment options for small businesses, they may gain support without appearing overly corporate.
Paths Forward For the Industry
Crypto PACs are likely to take a balanced approach by giving Thompson limited spending while focusing most of their money on closer races and national lobbying efforts. Some groups may run selective ads against Sherman to pressure him without fully trying to flip the seat.
Others could invest in voter education, ballot measures, and pro-crypto candidates in swing districts where spending has a better chance of affecting results. National events, such as economic changes or major crypto developments, could still reshape campaign priorities before November. Ultimately, the industry’s decision comes down to strategy, whether to target vocal critics or focus on winning influence in Congress.
For many crypto donors, practical political influence is likely to matter more than symbolic battles, making broader targeted investments a more attractive option than an expensive uphill race.
