Transparency is paramount in crypto.

I’ve spoken to many Democrats in crypto who wonder why Fairshake political action committee (PAC) spent $2 million in the Congressional race in New York’s 16th District.

Westchester County Executive George Latimer, 70 years old, did not run as a pro-crypto candidate. The crypto voting record of Congressman Jamaal Bowman, 48 years old, looks exactly like the majority of Democrats in Congress, most of whom also support Senator Elizabeth Warren’s anti-crypto stance.

In fact, just like Latimer, Bowman has not made public statements about crypto. So, why did Fairshake join AIPAC in dolling out millions to oppose Bowman’s reelection? Purportedly on the basis of his anti-crypto votes, which are the same as a majority of Congressional Democrats.

With a $15 million campaign coffer from AIPAC, Latimer did not need Fairshake’s $2 million for the win.

Deciding to inject crypto in a Democratic primary race where crypto is not an issue seems strange. Even Fairshake’s TV ad opposing Bowman did not mention crypto.

If the goal was to help elect a pro-crypto Democrat, why not the Michigan Democratic Primary where crypto-friendly candidate Hill Harper actually could use $2 million? Or, since Senator Elizabeth Warren has declared war on crypto, why not use the $2 million to support her crypto-friendly Republican opponent?

This is why many are perplexed.

Another PAC, Protect Progress, is supporting Democratic Congressional candidates Shomari Figures (AL) and Julie Johnson (TX), who have outlined their position on crypto in their agenda on their websites. Latimer, a Baby Boomer, has not shared a position on crypto policy.

Why does it matter?

The crypto ecosystem is not a monolith and includes many Democrats, like myself.

Fairshake is a Political Action Committee, a centralized entity that can make unilateral decisions. But their actions are not above reproach.

In the case of NY-16, the math does not add up. Framing Rep. Bowman as crypto’s Public Enemy #1 is a stretch.

Going back to transparency, what should be the criteria when claiming to be a surrogate for the entire crypto industry?

At issue here is not the election results. It’s the optics during this already polarizing, partisan, political period. At issue is a lack of clarity as to why Fairshake injected itself into a Democratic primary where crypto is not on the docket.

We lose trust when motives are in doubt. Fairshake’s play in NY-16 does not appear to be about crypto and it is disingenuous to pretend it is.

But to end on a positive note, congratulations to Fairshake on helping to seal the election of a Democrat whose voting record on crypto is likely to be similar to that of Congressman Bowman.

CHEWS

WEEKLY Tipsheet

NY-16 POLITICS

Fairshake Statement

CLEVE'S HOT TAKE

Policy Not Politcs