As Maryland’s newly elected U.S. Senator, Angela Alsobrooks faces a critical choice. Should she once again endorse cryptocurrency, it would mark a significant misstep in her budding political journey. This issue holds deep personal resonance.
My family’s history is interwoven with the spirit of hard work and community investment. My great-grandfather began his career as a humble blacksmith in Oakland, Maryland. Through dedication and foresight, he expanded his services into a thriving hardware store, eventually adding retail appliances, furniture, and even establishing a local bank. This institution, now known as First United Bank & Trust, has grown into a multi-million dollar publicly traded company.
Contrast this with the financial empire built by Warren Buffett, widely regarded as one of history’s most successful investors. His conglomerate owns significant stakes in iconic companies such as Geico, Coca-Cola, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Benjamin Moore, Clayton Homes, Duracell, and Fruit of the Loom, amassing a total valuation exceeding $1 trillion through providing real-world products and services.
Yet, Bitcoin, a digital asset that generates no revenue, pays no dividends, and provides no tangible goods or services, boasts a market capitalization surpassing $2 trillion.
Former President Donald Trump once characterized Bitcoin as “based on thin air,” labeling it a “scam” with the potential to “enable illicit activities like drug trafficking.”
These sentiments are echoed by consumer advocacy groups like Public Citizen and a significant portion of the American public, many of whom harbor reservations about the safety and dependability of cryptocurrencies.
Despite his earlier skepticism, Trump now champions himself as the “crypto president.” This shift is driven by an unprecedented wave of political donations from influential crypto advocates, leading a cowed Congress to approve crypto-friendly legislation, with more possibly on the horizon.
Senator Alsobrooks appears poised to deviate from the stance of Senator Chris Van Hollen and potentially side with the “crypto bros” in an upcoming September vote, mirroring her support for the earlier stablecoin legislation known as the Genius Act.
The cryptocurrency industry has poured significant resources into political campaigns, notably spending approximately $40 million to unseat Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a vocal critic of cryptocurrency. Total spending by crypto interests exceeded $119 million in the 2024 elections, surpassing every other industry in campaign expenditures, according to Public Citizen reports.
Another $10 million was spent opposing Katie Porter’s (D-Calif.) Senate primary campaign due to her perceived anti-crypto stance. Porter had raised concerns about the significant energy consumption, or “mining,” required to validate crypto transactions. The energy used for crypto mining now surpasses the total energy consumption of Argentina.
Furthermore, stablecoins facilitate rapid, international, and largely anonymous transactions, making them attractive for illicit activities. Researchers at Georgetown reported that illicit stablecoin transactions reached $51 billion in 2024, a rise from $46 billion the prior year.
Stablecoins maintain a one-to-one peg with fiat currencies. One dollar theoretically equals one token of a stablecoin like Tether, the most utilized stablecoin. Tether is commonly used in illicit financial activities.
Trump himself is now involved with stablecoins, utilizing them for business dealings in the Middle East. Stablecoins represent an interest-free loan for their sponsors. Reportedly, after receiving $2 billion from Abu Dhabi, Trump sold them $2 billion worth of his newly created token. Until the tokens are redeemed, he can invest those dollars in US Treasuries, pocketing the interest.
The pending September vote focuses on the “Responsible Financial Innovation Act” (more accurately, the Ponzi Scheme Enablement Act), which addresses cryptocurrencies beyond stablecoins, including Bitcoin. The aggregate value of Bitcoin is approximately $2 trillion, while the collective value of the thousands of other cryptocurrencies exceeds $1 trillion.
Cryptocurrencies are largely predicated on the “greater fool” theory. Purchasing Bitcoin does not provide the buyer with dividends, interest, or ownership in a productive enterprise. It is “thin air,” as Trump once insightfully observed. Profitability depends solely on finding a buyer willing to pay a higher price – a greater fool.
Despite the considerable risks of Ponzi schemes, illicit finance, energy waste, and Trump’s potential corruption, immense political spending seemingly overwhelms politicians’ concerns. Ethical experts are calling Trump’s actions the most significant corruption in presidential history.
Crypto political spending typically targets advertisements that avoid directly referencing crypto. Recognizing public skepticism towards cryptocurrencies, these ads emphasize other qualities of pro-crypto candidates and amplify the alleged shortcomings of their opponents.
Crypto interests have already amassed a $100 million war chest for the 2026 midterm elections, a fact they advertise to intimidate. Some senators might conclude that aligning with crypto is the safer political path. While constituents may view crypto unfavorably, it’s unlikely to drive their voting decisions as decisively as issues such as foreign conflicts, reproductive rights, tax fairness, and healthcare costs. Opposing crypto carries the risk of facing a barrage of negative campaign ads, potentially without yielding a substantial gain in votes.
Ideally, Senator Alsobrooks will resist the influence of cryptocurrency’s financial power. It is essential that she opposes harmful legislation, demands that Trump divests himself from crypto ventures due to their clear conflict of interest, and advocates for stronger consumer and investor protections against this looming Ponzi scheme. Ideally, she should vote against the Ponzi Finance Enablement Act, and ideally, she should support the principles of honest commerce exemplified by small business owners like my great-grandfather, who contribute tangible goods and services to the Maryland community.
Bartlett Naylor, a Maryland native and financial policy advocate at Public Citizen in Washington, D.C. Contact him at bnaylor@citizen.org.