Poll: Americans uneasy with AI, crypto even as they spend big on midterms

Some of the resistance to the AI and crypto groups may reflect broader American dissatisfaction with special interest groups’ spending. A 41 percent plurality say special interest groups have too much influence over politics in the U.S., while 23 percent say they have the right amount. Just 12 percent say they have too little influence.

But the AI and crypto super PACs are on a new level, and the rise of these groups is creating shockwaves throughout politics. These groups could easily become the biggest spender in any House or Senate race that they choose — or several.

Leading the Future, a pro-AI super PAC founded in August, has already raised more than $75 million since its launch, according to recent filings with the Federal Election Commission. Through a network of PACs, it has deployed money on primaries in North Carolina, Texas, Illinois and New York for Democratic and Republican candidates. Fairshake, a pro-crypto group primarily funded by Coinbase, Andreessen Horowitz and Ripple Labs, is expected to back candidates in both parties and has already spent $28 million across several competitive primaries through its network of PACs.

Both industries are also spending big on Washington lobbyists to ensure their influence continues past Election Day. The AI lobby in particular has ballooned in recent years; OpenAI and Anthropic spent record amounts of money on lobbyists in the first quarter of 2026. The crypto industry has also poured millions into lobbying efforts in recent years to push Congress to enact a sweeping overhaul of how digital assets are regulated.

“The universal thread, from their perspective, is, I think an attempt to maintain a degree of bipartisanship and identify people whom they think will be champions on these issues,” said Jason Thielman, former executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, of the crypto-aligned groups.

For the crypto industry, the super PAC spending is aimed at pushing through a market structure bill called the CLARITY Act that is pending in the Senate. Industry executives and lobbyists hope the proposed law would give the industry a stamp of legitimacy from Washington and deliver long-term certainty about how digital tokens will be overseen by market regulators.

The super PAC money acts as both carrot and stick: It could benefit lawmakers facing competitive reelection campaigns in 2026 who back the industry’s goals — and threaten those who stand in the way.

In 2024, a Fairshake-affiliated super PAC spent more than $40 million to help defeat then-incumbent Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Brown, a longtime crypto critic, is running again and could again be a major target for the crypto PAC network.

“Crypto groups are absolutely becoming a disruptive force in political spending, including in Ohio,” said former Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Renacci, who unsuccessfully challenged Brown in 2018. “But let’s face it, they’re not unique. It’s just the latest version of outside money.”

Fairshake declined to comment.

The AI groups spending big in elections want to ensure their nascent industry is regulated by one set of federal rules, not a state-by-state patchwork, as state legislators rapidly pass new laws regulating the technology. The White House and congressional Republicans have generally supported that goal, but have so far floated light-touch regulations that most Democrats believe don’t go far enough. While the tech sector leans toward the GOP’s deregulatory approach, some lobbyists are open to strong federal rules on AI in exchange for a ban on state laws.

“A national framework will prevent a patchwork of conflicting state laws from harming our ability to win the global AI race against China,” Leading the Future spokesperson Jesse Hunt said in a statement.

But the polling suggests these industries’ efforts may run into broader public skepticism.

More than half of Americans say they have never and would not consider buying or trading cryptocurrency. On artificial intelligence, nearly half of respondents say it is likely to eliminate more jobs than it creates, and a 43 percent plurality say the risks of the technology outweigh the benefits.

"There is a lot of work that needs to be done to help the voting public fully appreciate the national security threat that we face if we are not first in [the AI] race,” Thielman said of AI-affiliated groups. “It’s essential that [the] industry continue to invest very aggressively here, both to increasingly educate the public, educate policy makers because the issue is somewhat mixed from a public opinion perspective.”

The skepticism cuts across partisan lines, with pluralities of voters for both Trump and former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 saying that investing in crypto is not a risk worth taking, even if it gives high returns. A near majority of both groups — 49 percent of Harris voters and 46 percent of Trump voters — say AI is developing too quickly.

For now, many of the super PACs tied to the AI and crypto industries remain relatively unknown to many voters, allowing them to fly under the radar.

Americans associate political spending with more established industries, with a 29 percent plurality incorrectly identifying groups representing the oil and natural gas industry as the highest spenders in the midterms — ahead of AI and tech groups or crypto-backed organizations.

Just nine percent of Americans say they have heard of Leading the Future, the pro-AI super PAC, and only three percent have heard of Fairshake, the pro-crypto PAC. Meanwhile, 48 percent of Americans say they have heard of the National Rifle Association and 36 percent say they’ve heard of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

“Until people realize where the money's coming in from, a lot of people don't judge it,” Renacci said. “But I do think if they see somebody is backed by crypto, that’s always going to be a problem, because, let's face it, the people that I talk to in Ohio, they don't understand crypto, and most say they're not comfortable with [it].”