POLITICO Poll: Nearly Half of Americans Still Don’t Trust AI and Cryptocurrency, Seeing Them as Wrongful and Questionable Practices

POLITICO’s commissioned April national poll conducted by Public First shows that 45% of Americans believe investing in cryptocurrencies “is not worth the risk,” and 44% think AI development is “happening too fast”; combined, the super PACs for crypto and AI have raised over $300 million, targeting the 2026 midterm elections, yet they face the dilemma of extremely low voter awareness and serious trust issues—Fairshake has only 3% national recognition, and Leading the Future just 9%. This contradiction of “spending money ≠ approval” is becoming an increasingly political bombshell that candidates find harder and harder to avoid when accepting these checks.
(Background: The crypto industry has invested $193 million to prepare for the U.S. midterms, with opposition lawmakers becoming the first targets)
(Additional context: Trump and Bencet jointly pressure the Senate for “clear legislation,” as DeFi and stablecoin regulation face countdowns)

Table of Contents

Toggle

• Same disinterest among both parties’ voters: numbers so cold they’re hard to look at
• Fairshake, Leading the Future: lots of money, little fame
• Recognition gap: NRA 48%, Fairshake only 3%
• Democratic attack angle: weaponizing spending itself
• CLARITY Act: the final battleground, outcome still uncertain

Money has been poured in, but voters haven’t followed. In the 2026 U.S. midterm elections, the two major industries—crypto and AI—are infiltrating election finance on an unprecedented scale: pro-crypto Fairshake has a total war chest of $193 million, and pro-AI Leading the Future has raised over $125 million. With a combined arsenal of over $300 million, they face poll results that make funders uneasy.

A POLITICO-commissioned national survey by independent firm Public First in April shows that 45% of Americans think “investing in cryptocurrencies is not worth the risk, even if it could bring high returns”; nearly half trust traditional banks more than crypto platforms, with only 17% feeling the opposite. Over half of Americans directly say they have “never considered, and will not consider in the future,” buying or selling cryptocurrencies.

Same disinterest among both parties’ voters: numbers so cold they’re hard to look at

The outlook for AI is similarly bleak. 44% of respondents believe AI is developing “too quickly,” nearly half think AI “will eliminate more jobs than it creates,” and 43% see greater risks than benefits. More critically, two-thirds of supporters of legislation favor “strict regulation” or “broad principles” for the AI industry; in simulated confrontations, voters tend to support candidates advocating “more stringent AI regulation” rather than those favoring “lax regulation.”

This coldness is non-partisan. On crypto issues, both Trump voters in 2024 and voters for Kamala Harris “also” tend to believe that investing in crypto is not worth the risk; on AI regulation, 49% of Harris voters and 46% of Trump voters agree that development is happening too fast—an uncommon cross-party consensus, though not friendly to the industry.

Fairshake, Leading the Future: lots of money, little fame

Fairshake is mainly funded by Coinbase (over $75 million donated, plus an additional $25 million), a16z (total $70 million), Ripple Labs (about $50 million), with its PAC network actively investing $28 million in multiple competitive primaries (according to FEC filings). Both parties’ candidates are targeted, with the strategy to maintain bipartisan influence and find individuals willing to stand up on digital asset issues. In 2024, Fairshake-related PACs spent $40 million, successfully defeating incumbent Democratic Senator and long-time crypto critic Sherrod Brown (Ohio). Brown announced a run again in 2026, likely to become a primary target once more.

Leading the Future was established in August 2025, backed by major funders including a16z, OpenAI President Greg Brockman, Perplexity, and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale. It currently holds about $70 million in cash and has deployed resources in primaries across New York, Texas, Illinois, and other states. spokesperson Jesse Hunt emphasized: “A unified national framework can prevent conflicting state laws and impact our ability to win in the AI race.”

Notably, Anthropic has taken a different route—investing $20 million in February 2026 into the super PAC Public First Action, which supports “more stringent AI regulation,” openly clashing with OpenAI-led Leading the Future, creating internal divisions in the AI lobbying front.

Recognition gap: NRA 48%, Fairshake only 3%

Spending a lot of money doesn’t mean voters know you. Polls show that 48% of Americans have heard of the NRA (National Rifle Association), 36% of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and 29% of oil and gas industry-related PACs—yet Fairshake’s national recognition is only 3%, and Leading the Future just 9%.

An even larger recognition mismatch is that 29% of Americans mistakenly believe that the oil and gas industry is the “biggest spender” in this midterm election, rather than crypto or AI. This means that even though Fairshake and Leading the Future are becoming disruptive forces in 2026 election finance, most voters remain unaware—short-term, a shield; long-term, a double-edged sword.

Former Ohio Republican Congressman Jim Renacci sees this clearly: “Before people realize where the money is coming from, they won’t judge. But I do think if they see someone is supported by crypto, it’s always going to be an issue. Honestly, the people I’ve talked to in Ohio don’t understand crypto; most say they’re uncomfortable with it.”

Democratic attack angle: weaponizing spending itself

For opponents, this poll provides excellent political ammunition. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy openly stated on X: “The best strategy for Democrats is to frame this spending as an issue. People don’t want AI companies to dominate their culture and economy. They don’t trust crypto.”

41% of respondents believe special interest groups have “too much influence” on U.S. politics, only 23% say “about right,” and 12% think “too little”—this figure shows that “who is paying for politicians” is itself a mobilizable issue, and the high-profile spending of crypto and AI PACs effectively hands the target to opponents.

CLARITY Act: the final battleground, outcome still uncertain

One core policy goal of crypto super PACs is to push the Senate’s “Digital Asset Market Structure Act” (CLARITY Act) through. On May 2, 2026, Senators Tim Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks reached a compromise on stablecoin yields, prohibiting yields comparable to bank deposit rates but allowing “genuine business activities.” Coinbase, Circle immediately expressed support, urging the banking committee to proceed with detailed review. If the May committee review goes smoothly, the bill could pass before Congress’s recess in July, but Galaxy Research estimates the chance of formal enactment this year at about 50/50, relatively low.

Former NRSC Executive Director Jason Thielman candidly discussed the AI PAC’s approach: “A lot of work is needed to make voters fully understand how serious the national security threat is if we don’t beat China in the AI race. The industry must continue to invest actively.” This statement precisely highlights the industry’s dilemma—they’re playing the geopolitics card, but voters are more concerned about their jobs being taken by AI and whether crypto platforms are more unreliable than banks. Spending money can buy candidates, but it cannot buy voter trust—that’s the most difficult math problem for 2026.