90% of crypto's Illinois primary spending failed to achieve its objective

Nobody's lobbying achieved objectives in the Illinois primary, which is more a statement about the ineffectiveness of lobbying (at least in these kinds of races) than anything else. The candidates that won were the candidates you'd expect to win given demographics and the recent political history of the region.

Throwing money at a Republican primary candidate in Illinois is probably as ineffective as it would be in New York. The big cities are just too deeply Democratic.

Pretty sure primary sending isn’t very helpful when it’s intended to change election results.

What’s helpful is donating to people who you already know are going to win so that they do you favors later on.

Is there a writeup of the objectives of lobbying/spending here? Are specific bills/topics proposed for the upcoming session?

"The cryptocurrency industry super PACs dumped $14.2 million into the Illinois primaries. 90% of that – $12.8 million – was wasted, in that it went to opposing Democratic candidates who won their primaries"

I read that as them having mistakenly sent the cryptos to the "opposing candidate"

Fortunately, you can't typically "buy" elections by donating to campaigns.

Campaign spending does have an effect for unknown candidates, but once the voters know who you are and what you stand for, further spending doesn't move the needle.

It's true that the campaign with most money usually wins, but that does not the money caused the win!

One way to think about it is that the most popular candidate naturally gets the most donations, just like they get the most votes. It can also be a good investment to be on good terms with the future winner.

You can't talk about what happened in the Illinois primaries without talking about the other PACs who spent big, specifically AIPAC and other dark-money Israel-affiliated PACs that spent to defeat pro-Palestinian candidates (eg Kat Abugazaleh) without ever once mentioning Israel [1].

It's far more accurate to say that pro-Zionist groups spent big in the Illinois primary and got mixed results. Crypto just went along for the ride.

There is a war in the Democratic Party between anti-genocide candidates, who enjoy 90% support in the base, and the establishment who is doing everything to defeat them, up to and including intentionally losing the 2024 presidential election [3].

Nobody cares about crypto.

[1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/18/aipac-israel-illino...

[2]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/702440/israelis-no-longer-ahead...

[3]: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/dnc-autopsy-gaza-...

Pretty sure primary sending isn’t very helpful when it’s intended to change election results.

What’s helpful is donating to people who you already know are going to win so that they do you favors later on.

The article suggests something like 90% of their spend was intended to change results. Can you help me understand your comment? I don’t get it.

I don't understand how a blanket statement like this can apply. In a voting district where one party is heavily favored, such that that party's primary election winner is basically going to win the general election (e.g. New York City), then primary spending seems like the only place to influence the election.

Is there a writeup of the objectives of lobbying/spending here? Are specific bills/topics proposed for the upcoming session?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cryptocurrency-and-ai-...

They're concerned about regulation, as always.

Note that this election has no impact over the current congress. Senators and Reps won't be seated until January.

I read that as them having mistakenly sent the cryptos to the "opposing candidate"

The quote is the wrong way of looking at this. The typical rate of successful primary challenges is only 3%. If you take that to 10% its an enormous success, incumbents will say "if I oppose crypto then I triple my odds of losing in a primary, better not do that."

It's far more accurate to say that pro-Zionist groups spent big in the Illinois primary and got mixed results. Crypto just went along for the ride.

Nobody cares about crypto.

[1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/18/aipac-israel-illino...

[2]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/702440/israelis-no-longer-ahead...

[3]: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/dnc-autopsy-gaza-...

The article suggests something like 90% of their spend was intended to change results. Can you help me understand your comment? I don’t get it.

I don't understand why they'd throw an election so the other pro-Israel side can win.

This is just activist cope. Voters in Illinois CD7, where I live, didn't put Melissa Conyears-Ervin (lavishly supported by AIPAC) into a tight second-place run against La Shawn Ford because Israel bamboozled them. If you look at the map of where the MCE votes came from, it's very unlikely any of them gave a shit about Israel whatsoever. Her votes followed the exact same pattern as they did in 2024, when she gave Danny Davis (the long-term incumbent) a run for his money, and when she wasn't supported by AIPAC at all.

In the Illinois 9th, AIPAC supported candidate seemingly at random in an attempt to split the progressive vote and clear a path for Laura Fine. Didn't work there either.

It may very well be the case that Israel is disfavored by a strong majority of Illinois Democrats (I'd certainly understand why). What your analysis misses is salience: people care about lots of things they don't vote about. Poll primary voters here; you will find a small group of them that think Israel is the most important issue in the district (they will be almost uniformly white PMC voters and they'll be disproportionately online). Mostly you're going to find voters that (a) hate Trump and (b) are concerned about the economy.

It's clearly not the case that "anti-genocide candidates" enjoy a 90% share of the Illinois Democratic primary electorate, because they didn't win.

It's not quite like that, though. 90% of their funding supported candidates that lost or opposed candidates that won -- they opposed the winning outcome. They supported the winning outcome with the remaining 10% of their funds, but here they pushed on the side of the contest which was already a lock anyway. So it isn't clear that any of the money they spent achieved anything.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cryptocurrency-and-ai-...

They're concerned about regulation, as always.

Note that this election has no impact over the current congress. Senators and Reps won't be seated until January.

In the Illinois 9th, AIPAC supported candidate seemingly at random in an attempt to split the progressive vote and clear a path for Laura Fine. Didn't work there either.

It's clearly not the case that "anti-genocide candidates" enjoy a 90% share of the Illinois Democratic primary electorate, because they didn't win.

I don't understand why they'd throw an election so the other pro-Israel side can win.

Throwing money at a Republican primary candidate in Illinois is probably as ineffective as it would be in New York. The big cities are just too deeply Democratic.

It's a primary. They put money against one Democrat in the hopes that some other Democrat who doesn't know about regulating crypto grifts will win.

Fortunately, you can't typically "buy" elections by donating to campaigns.

Campaign spending does have an effect for unknown candidates, but once the voters know who you are and what you stand for, further spending doesn't move the needle.

It's true that the campaign with most money usually wins, but that does not the money caused the win!

>Fortunately, you can't typically "buy" elections by donating to campaigns.

Having a Fox Mulder moment, because I too, want to believe. However, it makes me think, if it didn't work to some degree, whatever that may be, it wouldn't be common.

“Good investment” is looking a bit suspicious there

It's a primary. They put money against one Democrat in the hopes that some other Democrat who doesn't know about regulating crypto grifts will win.

“Good investment” is looking a bit suspicious there

>Fortunately, you can't typically "buy" elections by donating to campaigns.

Having a Fox Mulder moment, because I too, want to believe. However, it makes me think, if it didn't work to some degree, whatever that may be, it wouldn't be common.

Having been involved in some political campaigns and movements, I totally believe that nobody knows the ROI on where the dollars are going.

Political campaigns certainly need money, but there are heavily diminishing returns pretty quickly. In races where all the candidates have money just throwing more in doesnt seem to accomplish much.

Having been involved in some political campaigns and movements, I totally believe that nobody knows the ROI on where the dollars are going.

The cryptocurrency industry super PACs dumped $14.2 million into the Illinois primaries. 90% of that – $12.8 million – was wasted, in that it went to opposing Democratic candidates who won their primaries (Stratton in the Senate race, Ford in H-07) or supporting their opponents.

The Fairshake pro-crypto super PAC network spent $10 million to oppose Senate candidate Juliana Stratton and $2.5 million to oppose H-07 candidate La Shawn Ford, both of whom won their primaries

The PACs' only victories in the state were where they contributed money towards outcomes that were already highly likely. They opposed Robert Peters (H-02), who had been polling in third place and ultimately received 12% of the vote. They supported Bean (who was leading the polls in H-08) and incumbent Budzinski (H-13).

Sadly this early spending in Illinois used up less than 6% of what the super PACs have on hand, so buckle up for a looong eight months.

Hacker Times

Hacker Times

90% of crypto's Illinois primary spending failed to achieve its objective

Discussion

Discussion