27OCT

Fairshake sends $44.5m to Senate spender

1 min read

13:20UTC

Fairshake, the crypto-industry super PAC, sent $44.5m in three transfers to Defend American Jobs from 1 to 14 October, its pre-general report shows.

← Back to Senate Democrats borrow $15m, outspend GOP Jump to analysis ↓

PoliticsAssessed

Key takeaway

Fairshake moved $44.5m to Defend American Jobs in early October without raising new money.

Fairshake, the crypto-industry Super PAC (political action committee), sent $44.5m in three transfers to Defend American Jobs in the first half of October, its latest filing with the FEC (Federal Election Commission) shows⁠¹. It reported no receipts in the fortnight, so the transfers came from money raised earlier.

Defend American Jobs was the top spender in Ohio's Senate race in late September, when outside groups filed $44.1m there in a single week. The transfers move Fairshake's money from the fund that raises it to the committee that buys the ads, in the month before polling day.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Fairshake is a political group funded by cryptocurrency companies. It is a Super PAC, so it can raise and spend unlimited sums but may not plan its spending with candidates. In early October it passed $44.5m to a sister group, Defend American Jobs, which buys advertising in Senate races. That group was the biggest outside spender in Ohio's Senate race in late September. Fairshake raised no new money in the same two weeks.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Fairshake raised most of its money from a small number of crypto firms, so by October it is drawing down a stock rather than raising. Moving that stock to Defend American Jobs, its Republican-facing affiliate, puts it in the committee that bought the industry's Ohio Senate advertising.

The industry gives to both parties through separate committees. Fairshake's own October spending backed six House members from both parties, while its Senate money flows through its affiliate.

Sources:Federal Election Commission

Mentions:Fairshake →Defend American Jobs →Ohio →Adam Schiff →Bernie Moreno →California →FEC →Senator Sherrod Brown →Katie Porter →US Senate →

First Reported In

Update #22 · Senate Democrats borrow $15m, outspend GOP

Federal Election Commission· 27 Oct 2026

Read original →

Different Perspectives

Department of Justice (DOJ)

DOJ appealed to the 9th Circuit after Judge David O. Carter did not rule by a noon deadline on 22 October that DOJ itself had set, seeking to have California set aside mail ballots from more than 20,000 listed voters. Its case is that ineligible votes cancel lawful ones; the panel dismissed the appeal 2-1 on 26 October.

Lower Costs Now

Lower Costs Now reported $7.37m in Kansas on 24 and 25 October, part of $65.65m in Senate races since its first independent expenditure on 1 October, including $17.21m for Josh Turek in Iowa. Its FEC filings show $50.18m raised by 14 October.

MAGA Inc

MAGA Inc, the super PAC aligned with Donald Trump, filed $7.20m against James Talarico on 22 October, taking its Texas spending to $37.65m. Of that, $30.12m is against Talarico and $7.53m is for Ken Paxton, the Republican nominee.

Senate Majority PAC (SMP)

SMP's pre-general report shows it spent $108.70m from 1 to 14 October, including $65.0m to WinSenate and $10.0m to Texas Forever, and ended with $32.72m. Texas Forever has reported $19.40m against Ken Paxton since 1 October.

Senate Leadership Fund (SLF)

SLF's pre-general report shows $88.42m in cash on 14 October and $18.98m raised in the fortnight, none of it from Elon Musk. It has since reported $12.07m against Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and its $2.7m to Plains PAC preceded that committee's first Kansas buy on 25 October.

National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)

The NRSC's pre-general report shows nothing spent with Ashley Hinson in Iowa, or with its nominees in six other states, from 1 to 14 October, after $5.54m with Hinson in September. It took no new loan and ended the fortnight with $25.20m in cash and $20m of debt.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.