Three industries are reshaping the Democratic primary landscape with spending levels that rival the parties' own campaign machines. Cryptocurrency PACs, artificial intelligence groups, and pro-Israel organizations have poured unprecedented sums into House races, often to eliminate members who oppose their agenda.
The scale is staggering. Eight of the twelve largest outside spenders in House primaries this cycle represent crypto, AI, or pro-Israel interests. Protect Progress, the crypto-aligned Democratic PAC, has spent $15.8 million across nearly a dozen races. The United Democracy Project, tied to AIPAC, has deployed $11.6 million. An AIPAC-aligned group called Elect Chicago Women spent $9.8 million to back just two Illinois candidates.
These spending levels dwarf what the Democratic and Republican parties themselves typically invest in primaries. The House Majority PAC and Congressional Leadership Fund, the parties' main super PACs, rarely spend heavily in early contests, choosing instead to focus on general election battlegrounds. That vacuum has created an opening for outside groups to flood races with cash.
Real careers have been upended. Pro-Israel groups spent nearly $8 million to defeat GOP Rep. Thomas Massie in Kentucky's 4th District, making it the most expensive House primary in U.S. history. In Texas' 18th District, Protect Progress poured $5 million into unseating longtime Rep. Al Green, successfully backing challenger Christian Menefee.
Think Big, the AI-aligned PAC with backing from OpenAI donors, has invested $8.2 million and is actively opposing New York candidate Alex Bores over his stance on AI regulation. These groups have learned to obscure their fingerprints while moving money efficiently toward preferred candidates.
The tactic hasn't always been seamless. Some progressives have managed to turn the outside spending against their opponents by making the groups themselves the issue. Daniel Biss and Analilia Mejia both found success highlighting AIPAC's role in their races. But on the whole, crypto and AI groups have succeeded in elevating their candidates, and AIPAC has racked up wins despite,or perhaps because of,high-profile clashes with incumbents.
Rep. Marc Veasey, a Texas Democrat, offered a blunt assessment: voters simply don't care as much about these spending battles as politicians and candidates want to believe. "People like the idea that people are moved by it," Veasey told reporters, "but I don't think people really give a sh*t." He acknowledged the reality that lawmakers must now navigate a world where these wealthy groups wield veto power over their careers, whether they like it or not.
Not everyone agrees the spending is decisive. Justice Democrats, a progressive group that regularly finds itself on the receiving end of these attacks, argues that unpopular candidates or policies can't simply be rescued with money. Rep. Jared Huffman has suggested AIPAC "overplayed its hand" with its aggressive intervention in Democratic primaries, predicting a credibility problem ahead.
More races remain on the calendar. In Maryland's 5th District, both Protect Progress and the United Democracy Project are backing Adrian Boafo. New York's 12th District has become a three-way spending battle, with Think Big opposing Bores while Anthropic-backed and crypto-aligned groups support him.
Author James Rodriguez: "This isn't just about money anymore,it's about three powerful industries gaining de facto veto power over who gets to represent parts of America, and nobody in Congress seems to have figured out how to stop it."
Comments