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

Arainach

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

daft_pink

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.

tptacek

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.

jmyeet

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-...

buddhistdude

"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"

BurningFrog

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.

mmahd7456

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.

lern_too_spel

Good. I vote against anybody who is supported by crypto pacs as one of my top priorities in primaries. Unfortunately, Schiff beat Porter for the Senate seat in California, but happily the grifting Rishi Kumar continues to lose every seat he runs for.