90% of crypto's Illinois primary spending failed to achieve its objective
Crypto industry super PACs poured roughly $14 million into Illinois’ 2026 primaries, with about 90% spent opposing Democratic candidates who ultimately still won, prompting questions about how effectively money can shape electoral outcomes. Commenters weigh whether campaign spending truly “buys” elections or merely follows likely winners, and note that primaries in safe districts are often the real battlegrounds for interest groups. The thread also touches on overlapping influence campaigns by pro-Israel PACs, broader concerns about lobbying, Citizens United, and crypto regulation, including fears that some enforcement efforts could criminalize open-source developers rather than just target fraud.
Context and Objectives of Crypto Spending
- Linked coverage describes crypto and AI industries spending heavily in Illinois primaries, mostly to oppose candidates seen as unfriendly to their regulatory interests.
- Commenters note Illinois/Chicago’s importance due to major commodities exchanges, crypto trading firms, and overlapping issues like sports betting and prediction markets.
Effectiveness of Primary Spending and Lobbying
- Several argue the spending “failed” because ~90% went against candidates who still won; others say even a small increase in primary-loss risk can deter incumbents from taking hostile positions.
- Debate over strategy: some say it’s usually more effective to support likely winners or buy access after elections; others stress that primaries in safe districts are the real contests.
- Many emphasize diminishing returns: money can help unknowns but doesn’t reliably flip well-known candidates.
Role of Other PACs and Israel/Palestine Politics
- Some see crypto PACs as secondary to Israel-aligned PACs, which spent heavily against pro-Palestinian or “anti-genocide” candidates, often without mentioning Israel.
- Others counter that results were largely consistent with past cycles and existing demographics, and that Israel is low-salience for most primary voters compared to economy/Trump.
Money in Politics and Citizens United Debate
- Strong disagreement over whether “money buys elections”:
- One side: big spending is largely wasteful or correlational; popularity drives donations, not vice versa.
- Other side: money is the main way to shape narratives; lobbying is rational only if it works.
- Citizens United and First Amendment protections for political spending are criticized by some as legalized bribery; others warn that regulating it risks book-banning–type overreach.
Voter Behavior, Insurgent Candidates, and Electoral Systems
- Close primary results for inexperienced, online-influencer candidates spark debate:
- Some see this as meaningful insurgent-progressive momentum.
- Others see “meme candidates” and a neglected, more experienced local left.
- Ranked-choice voting, approval voting, and STAR voting are discussed as reforms to reduce spoiler effects; no consensus on practicality or voter comprehension.
Crypto Regulation vs Civil Liberties
- One subthread focuses on Tornado Cash:
- Critics of prosecution see it as criminalizing open-source privacy tools and chilling DeFi innovation.
- Opponents frame much of crypto as scams and money-laundering facilitation; argue “freedom to be scammed” isn’t a right and national-security concerns justify strict regulation.
Normative Reactions
- Several commenters welcome the failure of crypto PACs and say they actively vote against crypto-backed candidates.
- Others view the mixed results as mildly reassuring for democratic resilience, but warn elites will keep experimenting with influence strategies.