It's Not Hard to Figure Out Why Some Democrats Are Suddenly Pro-Crypto

Tiger Beat on the Potomac's bread and butter always has been stories of Democratic Party infighting. Bear in mind this is largely the fault of the Democrats, who are positively incontinent about airing their gripes with each other in public. (My modest Rules for Gracious Living include an iron prohibition against taking seriously any report that refers to "a longtime Democratic consultant/activist." Please, God, strike these people dumb.) On Wednesday, however, they really did have an interesting one regarding Senator Professor Warren, by the grace of God ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee these days, and her continuing skepticism regarding the great crypto scam.

Democrats are barreling toward a new clash over cryptocurrency policy that could pit a growing cadre of industry-friendly lawmakers in the party against the left’s loudest voice on financial policy: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Pro-crypto lawmakers are moving quickly to advance long-sought legislation that would give new legitimacy to the digital assets sector—part of a Republican-led push to deliver on President Donald Trump’s pledge to turn the United States into the “crypto capital of the planet.” To make it happen, they are scrambling to get enough Democrats on board with industry-backed legislation to clear the Senate.

It will come as a surprise to absolutely nobody that there are Democrats on board already.

Some on the left are already signing on, and it’s setting up a potential rift between crypto-friendly Democrats and Warren just months into the Massachusetts lawmaker’s tenure as the party’s new leader on the powerful Senate Banking Committee.

The push comes as part of a broad shift in Washington policymaking toward regulatory changes that could benefit the crypto sector. The industry, long dogged by scandals and concerns about financial fraud, is now being embraced by lawmakers and regulators who are eyeing changes that could help legitimize its $3 trillion market.

Wait. Let me catch up here. An industry that has been "long dogged by scandals and concerns about financial fraud" is now being "embraced" by elected officials that want to help "legitimize" the industry that has been "long dogged by scandals and concerns about financial fraud"? This is bananas.

(Remember always another of the shebeen's Rules for Gracious Living, which states that one should avoid people who say that they've invented new money.)

“I have a very different experience with crypto and understanding of how it fits into our economy,” Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) said in an interview last month of his differences with Warren.

Gallego voted as a member of the House last year for an industry-backed crypto bill that Warren opposed. He said last month that he is “going to vote to represent what I think Arizona actually thinks about crypto and how it fits into the economy.”

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is another one.

“There’s a number of [Democratic] senators who do want to get involved in this space,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a pro-crypto New York Democrat who has helped write GOP-led digital assets legislation and is quarterbacking the efforts to get other members of her party on board.

One of SPW's main concerns is the fact that crypto seems like a Persian bazaar for money laundering and the other depredations of the international money-shuffling system.

It’s all coming together to present a major early test for how Warren, who has clashed fiercely with moderate Democrats in the past over financial regulation issues, will handle differences with others in her party in her new role as its leader on the committee overseeing Wall Street and crypto. She has warned that digital assets present risks to consumers and called for the industry to be subjected to tougher anti-money laundering standards.

“I believe that Democrats understand the importance of consumer protections and anti-money laundering curbs in any new financial product,” Warren told reporters last week in response to questions for this story. “All we’re looking for is a level playing field between crypto and all of the other financial systems.”

Me, too. Of course, I can also refer back to the wisdom of former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, as expressed in the majority opinion in the case of Citizens United v. FEC.

We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. …The fact that speakers [i.e., donors] may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt… The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.

Of course not.

Back to TBOTP:

Crypto is used by just a fraction of the U.S. population, but it has come to play an outsize role in American politics. That has been driven in large part by the industry’s political spending. Gallego is one of three Senate Democrats who benefited from spending by a super PAC network funded by crypto firms, which spent more than $10 million to boost his Arizona Senate bid. Now, that PAC group has replenished its war chest with more than $115 million ahead of the 2026 midterms. The money acts as both carrot and stick: It could benefit lawmakers facing competitive re-election campaigns in 2026 who back the industry’s goals — and it threatens those who don’t.

Nothing gets by these people.