Which super PACs spent on Jasmine Crockett's 2022 and 2024 campaigns and who funded them?
Executive summary
Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s 2022 House bid was materially aided by super PAC spending tied to the cryptocurrency industry — including large support from Sam Bankman-Fried’s Protect Our Future — while her 2024 campaigns again attracted outside spending from industry and corporate-aligned PACs, with records showing super PAC and PAC activity but public reports stop short of a single, comprehensive list of every outside spender [1] [2] [3]. Public databases such as OpenSecrets and the FEC document PAC and outside spending into her cycles, but the reporting reviewed names only some of the principal actors and highlights industry concentrations rather than an exhaustive ledger [4] [3].
1. 2022: Crypto super PACs were the headline backers
Crockett’s 2022 House race drew national attention because “super PACs aligned with the cryptocurrency industry” poured support into her campaign, and multiple reports single out Sam Bankman‑Fried’s Protect Our Future PAC as a major actor, with Protect Our Future reported to have given $1 million in support to her bid [1] [5]. Contemporary coverage framed that spending as part of a broader pattern of crypto‑industry outside spending on favorable House candidates in that cycle, and summaries of the 2022 cycle repeatedly describe “two super PACs connected to the crypto industry” backing her campaign [2] [5]. The factual record available in these sources therefore supports that crypto‑funded super PACs — notably Protect Our Future — were key outside spenders in 2022 [1] [5].
2. 2024: Industry PACs, corporate PACs and ongoing outside activity
By 2024, Crockett was a higher‑profile national politician and outside spending reflected that status: industry and corporate PACs — including defense and financial‑sector PACs and business‑aligned groups like BlackRock’s PAC and Lockheed Martin’s PAC — are specifically listed among entities that gave to or spent in races connected to her candidacy, and reporting names multiple cryptocurrency industry donors making direct contributions in 2024 [2]. The FEC’s candidate overview for Crockett records outside committees that show spending either supporting or opposing her, such as entries tied to Fueling Individual Rights Everywhere (FIRE) and other outside committees, but the FEC tab notes that “none of the funds are directly given to or spent by the candidate,” underlining the technical distinction between independent expenditures and contributions to campaigns [3]. OpenSecrets aggregates and categorizes PAC and outside spending on her 2023–2024 cycle but the reporting provided here emphasizes industry groups and major corporate PAC names rather than a single super PAC roster [4] [6].
3. Who funded those super PACs — the donors behind the donors
Reporting highlights several high‑profile crypto figures and firms as funders of the super PAC ecosystem that spent on Crockett: Andreessen Horowitz, the Winklevoss twins, Anatoly Yakovenko (Solana CEO), Hayden Adams (Uniswap CEO), and other crypto executives are named as contributors or associated donors in 2024 fundraising summaries; multiple accounts also tie some of those actors to other political giving networks (including, in the reporting’s view, donations that later flowed to a presidential inaugural fund) [2]. The 2022 outlier of Sam Bankman‑Fried’s Protect Our Future is explicitly identified as a backer in multiple sources [1] [5]. In 2024, corporate PACs from heavy industries — including defense and finance — are flagged in news reporting and donor summaries as part of the donor mix supporting Crockett’s campaigns or spending in races connected to her [2] [6].
4. Caveats, competing interpretations and what the records don’t show
The public record and the sources reviewed make clear patterns — crypto‑linked super PACs were influential in 2022 and industry/corporate PACs were visible in 2024 — but they do not present a single, definitive catalog of every super PAC spender or every contributor to those PACs; databases like OpenSecrets and the FEC provide itemized filings that can be queried for full transaction-level detail, but the secondary reporting here focuses on major names and industry clusters rather than an exhaustive list [4] [3]. Critics and partisan commentators have framed these donors as evidence of compromised independence or of broad bipartisan corporate interest, while defenders emphasize ordinary political fundraising dynamics and note that independent expenditures are legally separate from campaign committees; both frames appear across the reporting [2] [1]. For a fully enumerated roster of super PACs and dollar figures, the FEC and OpenSecrets itemized filings remain the primary sources; the coverage summarized above identifies the principal actors and funder categories documented by those outlets but does not replace a line‑by‑line FEC accounting [4] [3].