Crypto Political Group Fairshake Targets California Democrat Senate Candidate Katie Porter

CoinDeskPolicyPublished on 2024-02-12Last updated on 2024-02-13

Abstract

The super PAC said it's spending millions to oppose the lawmaker in her Senate race, but her campaign says it's a "scheme to mislead voters."

  • U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, a prominent Democrat progressive from California, has a crypto target on her back as one of the industry's leading campaign-finance organizations opposes her with ads.
  • Porter's campaign said that billionaires and corporate interests are trying to rig the March primary election with misinformation.

The U.S. crypto industry's most prominent campaign-finance organization, Fairshake, is going after Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), spending a part of its war chest to try to derail the progressive lawmaker's Senate bid.

A new video ad attempts to skewer Porter's own campaign fundraising and is part of what the group said is a multi-million-dollar effort in California and online.

"Despite her claims, Porter has taken campaign cash from the big banks, big pharma, and big oil and her Super PAC is spending big to mislead Californians about her record," according to a statement from Fairshake, a political action committee (PAC) supported by crypto firms including Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), ARK Invest, Circle, Ripple and Coinbase (COIN).

Advertisement
Advertisement

Apart from criticism of the crypto mining sector's energy usage, Porter hasn't been among the more outspoken crypto critics. Her campaign said that California voters "will see through this scheme to mislead voters ahead of the March primary," according to spokesperson Lindsay Reilly.

"Katie believes in the free market and that consumer protections pair well with financial innovation – but that’s not what this is about," Reilly said in an emailed statement. "It's about billionaires and corporate special interests using misinformation to rig our elections."

Recent tallies of contributions to Fairshake put the industry super PAC's funding at more than $80 million. That doesn't yet mark a new high for crypto's political coffers. In the last U.S. campaign cycle, FTX alone spent at a similar level on candidates when its executives donated to one in three members of Congress, though that spending is now under a cloud as the bankruptcy has sought to claw it all back and U.S. authorities had investigated whether former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried violated campaign laws but decided not to pursue it with another trial.

In the current political landscape, crypto dollars had already been devoted against another Democratic lawmaker, too. The Cedar Innovation Foundation, which is backed by crypto interests who haven't identified themselves, has been gunning for Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee that has so far stood in the way of digital assets legislation in this congressional session. The group paid for ads in Ohio demanding Brown stand up to Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Related Reads

DeFi Has Reached Its Most Dangerous Moment: The Real Vulnerabilities Are Not in the Code

DeFi in Peril: The Real Vulnerability Isn't in the Code April 2026 marked a paradigm shift in DeFi security, with over $625 million lost across 30 incidents—the worst month in crypto history by event count. Crucially, none of the major exploits (Drift Protocol: $285M, KelpDAO: $292M, Wasabi Protocol: $4.5M) resulted from smart contract vulnerabilities. Instead, failures occurred in the operational "plumbing": social engineering to compromise multi-signature councils, a single-point-of-failure 1-of-1 bridge validator, and stolen admin private keys. These events expose a fundamental misalignment: the industry's security model has long focused on code audits, while the actual attack surface has shifted to privileged access points and off-chain infrastructure. The article introduces the term "OpenFi" to describe this reality: permissionless, on-chain, yet operationally dependent on trusted third parties (admins, validators, oracles) at key junctures. The KelpDAO exploit vividly demonstrated asymmetric "contagion risk." A configuration error in a smaller protocol triggered a panic, causing approximately $13.2 billion in outflows from larger, unaffected protocols like Aave within 48 hours, as users fled uncertain collateral. The core dilemma is the double-edged sword of centralization. Operational levers like emergency councils (e.g., Arbitrum freezing stolen funds post-KelpDAO) enable crisis response but also create catastrophic attack surfaces if compromised (e.g., Drift). The path forward demands radical honesty: protocols must clearly disclose their trust assumptions, operational levers, and failure modes. The industry must treat operational security (key management, configurations, incident response) with the same rigor as code security. Survival depends on building systems whose risks can be understood, priced, and insured, moving beyond the outdated "code is law" mantra to a mature model of disclosed and managed trust.

链捕手8h ago

DeFi Has Reached Its Most Dangerous Moment: The Real Vulnerabilities Are Not in the Code

链捕手8h ago

Vitalik's Article Emphasizes Ethereum Must Be 'Amazing', But Foundation Is Not the Center

Vitalik Buterin has published a lengthy response to recent community criticism directed at the Ethereum Foundation (EF). Acknowledging a sense of "unease," he addresses concerns about the EF's strategic direction, its perceived disconnect from ETH's price performance, and calls for its reduced central role. Vitalik rejects the notion that the EF should be the central governing body of Ethereum, framing it instead as one "node with a clear mandate" among many within the ecosystem. He highlights the EF's limited ETH holdings (≈0.16% of supply) compared to other blockchain foundations and states it will no longer sell significant amounts of ETH. Its future focus will be on long-term, critical projects that align with Ethereum's core values of censorship-resistance and decentralization, which might not otherwise happen. A core argument is that Ethereum must be "amazing," but not by merely chasing higher transaction speeds at the cost of decentralization. He proposes focusing on the "CROPS" dimensions: creating a Cryptographically provable, Reliable, Open, Private, and Secure network. This includes pursuing goals like a formally verifiable, bug-free Ethereum client and minimizing protocol-level reliance on intermediaries. The article concludes by noting that while Vitalik clarifies the EF's refocused role, he does not directly address community suggestions for creating a new organization explicitly aligned with ETH's economic interests. This "alignment gap" is presented as a key challenge for Ethereum's future.

链捕手8h ago

Vitalik's Article Emphasizes Ethereum Must Be 'Amazing', But Foundation Is Not the Center

链捕手8h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片