The Debate Showed How Little Crypto Matters to Voters and Politicians

It appears that both the American public and the presidential candidates have little interest in cryptocurrency, as demonstrated during the recent debate. Regardless of the industry’s growing partisanship, many voters are overlooking this detail, which seems to escape those deeply involved in the crypto sphere.

In general, politicians are usually more focused on keeping their positions in power than anything else, regardless of political affiliation – and many reasonable people might find this common ground. It takes a specific kind of person with a certain amount of ego to aspire for elected office, and once they reach it, these individuals often don’t want to step down from the spotlight. Biden’s prolonged reluctance to withdraw from the election race serves as a clear illustration of this behavior pattern.

Deep pockets

In order to stay in office, politicians need donations.

Indeed, it’s true that Donald Trump did participate and deliver a speech at this year’s Bitcoin 2024 conference held in Nashville. He did express ambitious ideas, even going as far as stating that all Bitcoins should be produced within the U.S. However, just because he made these statements doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an immediate issue to address.

At that event, his primary reason for attending was a charity dinner where each guest had to pay up to $844,600 to share a meal with him, which is the highest legal campaign contribution. Some paid $60,000 just for an opportunity to have their photo taken with the former president. To put it into perspective, a fundraising dinner hosted by Kamala Harris in San Francisco not long after this event required guests to pay between $3,300 and $50,000, resulting in her receiving approximately $12 million.

Should you believe that’s quite extensive, brace yourself. The sector has made extraordinary efforts to find the significance it yearns for.

Irrational exuberance

Ever since the Citizens United decision in 2010, which facilitated the formation of Super PACs (groups that collect funds for political candidates), only one sector has surpassed crypto in terms of attempting to exert influence over government, as per a recent examination of campaign contributions by Public Citizen, a non-profit organization.

Since 2010, fossil fuel corporations have given a total of $176 million in political donations, with Koch Industries contributing $73 million. Koch Industries is often viewed as a significant source of money used to influence elections. In this election cycle alone, they’ve contributed almost $30 million through two Super PACs. No other entity has come close, except for the crypto sector.

This year, the political action committee most similar to Fairshake in terms of donations received, backed by the Koch family, is the Americans for Prosperity Action PAC. They have amassed a total of $26 million in contributions this year.

To the moon … or not?

Given that corporate contributions in cryptocurrency exceeded $129 million across the past three election cycles, accounting for around 15% of total corporate donations since the Citizens United verdict, and an astounding 92% being made this year, it’s not surprising at all that politicians are now addressing this particular group.

Many in the cryptocurrency field strongly support ideas like community involvement, compelling stories, and viral content. They see Trump as an ideal figure for this. They might think that funding a powerful meme could directly convey their issues to the White House, even into the political sphere. However, this approach is unlikely to be effective.

In simpler terms, Professor Nick Beauchamp from Northeastern University explained to their school newspaper that when people talk about a ‘crypto “voting block”, they’re not referring to voters but rather donors. He also mentioned that crypto is rarely considered an important issue and that many people either don’t know much about it or only have basic views on the subject.

As a researcher, I’ve discovered that while there may be numerous entities in the cryptocurrency sphere, it is a passionate few within this group who significantly contribute to our campaigns. Interestingly, these individuals are the driving force behind our crypto-related declarations. It’s also worth noting that their presence might be the primary reason some Republicans and notable Democrats like Chuck Schumer are hesitant towards regulation in this area.

Politicians see crypto as donors rather than voters – I hope some of you are seeing this.

Down the river

Numerous influential leaders have tarnished their image significantly this year by engaging in heated political discussions intended to sway public opinion towards a particular candidate. While they are entitled to express their views, it’s thought-provoking to speculate whether they will look back on these actions and their repercussions favorably in the years to come.

If someone who identifies as a “single-issue voter,” focusing on blockchain and digital assets, took a short break from social media, took a moment to reflect, and recalled their personal values outside of the Bitcoin community, they might make a more thoughtful decision about who to vote for, regardless of which candidate they ultimately choose.

Regardless of efforts by this sector to acquire power, one truth persists: cryptocurrency continues to expand, yet its journey towards widespread significance is lengthy and convoluted, as recent discussions have demonstrated yet again.

As I delve into my explorations within the realm of cryptocurrency, it’s important to clarify that any perspectives presented here are solely mine, not necessarily shared by CoinDesk, Inc., its proprietors, or affiliated entities.