rewrite this title Should Crypto and AI Companies Have Political Influence?

Many crypto and AI companies are industry giants operating with the kind of financial and political influence once associated only with major banks, energy firms, or tech monopolies. As that influence expands, so does their role in shaping public policy through AI lobbying, campaign donations, and direct engagement with lawmakers. 

The stakes are high: choices made today could determine how these technologies are regulated, how risks are managed, and how benefits are distributed across society. This raises a pressing question: should crypto and AI companies be allowed to wield political influence, and what are the potential consequences of their involvement?

Crypto and AI companies aren’t just building technology; they’re actively trying to shape the rules that govern it, using political influence to push for favourable laws and standards.

Lobbying and Election Campaign Spending

Both industries have notably increased their political engagement in recent years. Crypto firms have poured millions into lobbying and campaign efforts, with some industry groups spending hundreds of millions to influence elections and key legislation related to digital assets and blockchain policy. 

At the same time, AI companies and related tech giants are spending big on Capitol Hill: in 2025, spending by tech and AI firms on lobbying exceeded $100 million, with major players like Meta, Amazon, and Google pushing on issues that include AI policy and regulation. 

Methods of influence

These companies use a range of tactics to shape policy:

Trade associations and coalitions that represent industry interests and coordinate lobbying efforts.
Direct lobbying by hiring former government officials or experienced lobbyists to advocate on specific legislative priorities.
Campaign contributions and super PAC funding tied to elections, backing candidates aligned with industry goals or preferred regulatory frameworks.
Funding think tanks, advisory boards, and policy groups that produce research or recommendations used in policymaking.

Impact on real policy outcomes

Crypto influence is visible in U.S. digital asset legislation and market structure debates, especially through bills like the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21), which passed the U.S. House in May 2024 and aimed to clarify whether crypto assets fall under SEC or CFTC jurisdiction. 

Crypto companies like Coinbase and Ripple, along with groups like Blockchain Association and Crypto Council for Innovation, helped shape the House Republican plan and supported efforts to pass it.

Stablecoin policy has been shaped by proposals such as the Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act, led by Rep. Patrick McHenry. Another proposal is the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act, first introduced in 2022 and later revised, with both focusing on reserve requirements, issuer licensing, and federal oversight for dollar-pegged tokens.

AI policy influence is most visible in U.S. federal coordination efforts and regulatory frameworks. In October 2023, President Biden issued the Executive Order 14110 on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy use of AI, , developed after extensive consultation with companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, and Anthropic. 

In January 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14179 to remove barriers to American leadership in artificial intelligence and direct the development of a federal AI Action Plan aimed at strengthening U.S. global dominance in the sector.

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework (2023) and the EU AI Act (finalized in 2024) reflect structured industry engagement in setting compliance and governance standards, particularly around transparency, safety testing, and model accountability.

Risks to Transparency and Democracy

Conflicts of interest 

The main motive behind crypto or artificial intelligence companies when pushing for certain legislation or regulations is their own profit, not the good of residents. A clear example is the U.S. stablecoin and crypto market structure debate around 2022–2024 stablecoin bills (Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act and related drafts). 

Large firms like Circle (USDC issuer) and exchanges such as Coinbase actively lobbied for rules that would allow them to operate under lighter, bank-like licensing frameworks rather than full banking regulation. 

Critics, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Sherrod Brown, argued that early stablecoin proposals could weaken reserve and oversight requirements, potentially benefiting large established issuers while increasing systemic risk.

Unequal access 

Companies like Coinbase and Ripple Labs have large lobbying teams in Washington and spent close to $100 million in 2024 on political influence. Smaller blockchain startups are often less represented in government hearings, such as those held by the US House Financial Services Committee on digital asset rules. This creates a situation where major industry players have more influence over policy than the wider crypto community.

In AI, big tech companies like Microsoft and Google were invited to the US Senate AI forums in 2023 and White House policy discussions, while smaller research groups and civil society organisations had fewer opportunities. This meant early rules around AI safety and transparency were shaped more heavily by the largest and most well-funded companies.

Long-term impact 

If these trends continue, there is a growing risk that regulatory bodies could move closer to regulatory capture, a situation where industries gradually gain influence over the institutions meant to oversee them. This does not necessarily mean direct control, but it can raise concerns about whether regulation remains independent and aligned with the public interest.

One of the most commonly discussed examples in crypto is the concern over the “revolving door” between regulators and the companies they once supervised. During FTX’s rapid rise before its collapse in 2022, the company brought in Mark Wetjen, a former Acting Chair and Commissioner of the CFTC, as its Head of Policy and Regulatory Strategy. 

FTX also hired Ryne Miller, former counsel to ex-CFTC Chair Gary Gensler, who became General Counsel at FTX US. Former SEC Chair Jay Clayton also later joined crypto custody company Fireblocks as an adviser after leaving office.

These appointments gave firms insider knowledge and greater influence over policy discussions, increasing concerns that regulation could align with industry interests rather than independent oversight. This may lead to a loss of public confidence in government bodies or to the creation of a biased regulatory system that may hinder development.

Policy volatility and inconsistency 

The rapid advancement of AI, cryptocurrencies, and other technologies makes it difficult for regulators to keep up, resulting in changing rules and enforcement approaches.

In crypto, this became visible through repeated shifts in U.S. regulation. The SEC approved Bitcoin futures ETFs in 2021 but rejected spot Bitcoin ETFs until January 2024, when it approved multiple spot ETF applications after years of opposition. 

The SEC sued Binance and Coinbase in June 2023 for allegedly operating unregistered securities businesses while broader crypto legislation remained unresolved. By 2025, some crypto investigations and enforcement actions were reduced or deprioritized as policy direction changed.

This creates favourable opportunities for firms to advocate for short-lived policies which would benefit them in the short term. Such inconsistent policies can harm small firms by increasing uncertainty in the market.

In AI, policy volatility is visible in how quickly governments moved from voluntary guidelines to stricter compliance expectations in 2025, especially around frontier model testing and disclosure. The shift became even more visible in Europe, where the EU AI Act introduced broad compliance requirements, with core obligations for General Purpose AI (GPAI) models taking effect across 2025 and 2026. 

As a result, companies building AI systems now face evolving rules across the U.S., EU, and UK, creating uneven compliance environments that larger firms can often adapt to more easily than smaller competitors.

Arguments for Industry Participation in Policymaking

Industry participation from crypto and AI firms can improve policymaking because regulators often need technical input to design workable rules for fast-moving technologies.

A clear example is the development of the UK AI Safety Summit (Bletchley Park, 2023), where governments invited leading AI developers, including OpenAI, DeepMind (Google DeepMind), Anthropic, and Meta, to test frontier model risks and help shape early international safety discussions. 

This engagement contributed to the creation of the Bletchley Declaration, a global agreement among governments to coordinate AI safety research for advanced models.

In crypto, similar technical input has been visible in regulatory work by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on virtual asset standards. Major exchanges and blockchain firms participated in consultations that shaped FATF’s “Travel Rule” guidance for crypto transactions, which sets requirements for identifying senders and receivers in transfers above certain thresholds. 

Industry input was used to ensure compliance rules were technically feasible for blockchain infrastructure, especially for exchanges handling cross-border transactions at scale.

This type of participation can reduce policy errors caused by regulators’ misunderstanding of how systems actually work. For example, misclassifying wallet infrastructure, smart contract execution, or model deployment constraints. Industry engagement can therefore help ensure rules are implementable rather than purely theoretical.

To limit undue influence, governments often combine industry consultation with transparency requirements and multi-stakeholder input. For example, FATF consultations include banks, regulators, and compliance bodies alongside crypto firms, while AI safety discussions in the UK and OECD frameworks include academic researchers and civil society groups. The aim is to balance technical expertise with public-interest oversight so that no single group dominates the rule-making process.

READ ALSO: The AI-Crypto Market: A Passing Trend or the Future of Web3? 

Balancing Innovation, Public Interest, and Political Accountability

As more power is acquired by crypto and AI firms in the policy process, there are implications that are much bigger than mere industries; implications that affect the very fabric of society. On the one hand, innovations in such areas will have positive effects on society through growth and development of the economy as well as the provision of better health care and financial services. 

On the other hand, the risk involved with unregulated corporate power over cryptos includes having policies made in the interests of corporations, thereby undermining democracy.

Achieving this balance requires three key approaches:

Policies should be based on evidence and inclusiveness, drawing upon the knowledge of industries, yet at the same time incorporating views from civil society organizations, academics, and consumer protection organizations in order to ensure citizen welfare without undermining innovation.
There should be more transparency and accountability regarding political influence. Corporate participation in lobbying, money donated to political figures, and government advice given by companies should all be reported and independently monitored so that it is known to the general public.
Lastly, cultivating an ethical engagement culture within the tech industry is crucial, where companies understand their responsibility not only to their stakeholders but also to the societies that will be affected by the technology.

With proper governance, policy making, transparency, and corporate responsibility, the future will ensure that innovation will occur without undermining public interest. Governance with respect to emerging technology will clearly impact the future in numerous ways, both economically, socially, and politically.

Where Should the Line Be Drawn?

As crypto and AI companies continue to gain influence in society, a crucial question emerges regarding the balance between engagement in politics and setting limits for such involvement. This is done to prevent any misuse of the technological skills and knowledge by these companies in politics.

Potential Solutions

Limits on campaign contributions 

The limited contributions from large tech companies will reduce the likelihood of policies being made based on financial power. Lower amounts, together with campaign finance reform, will help ensure that policymaking is based on broader societal concerns rather than the interests of a handful of corporations.

Stricter lobbying disclosures 

The obligation of corporations to provide detailed information on their lobbying efforts, financial support for think tanks and advisory positions, as well as their campaign contributions, ensures greater transparency. It becomes easier to know how corporate influence may affect decision-making.

One way to address the issue is to establish independent review committees or ethics commissions to oversee the process between policymakers and industry. This will ensure that the suggestions made strike an even balance between technical knowledge and public well-being and will not succumb to regulatory capture.

Hybrid Models

The third way of solving the problem would be to create a consultative framework through which technical knowledge will contribute to the development of regulations without influencing the entire process. An example of such a system would be an advisory committee comprising members of academia, civil society, and consumer organizations, as well as representatives from industry.

Rethinking Power in the Age of Crypto and AI Governance

Regulation of crypto and AI is likely to become less national and more coordinated across regions as governments respond to the global nature of both technologies. Instead of isolated rules, future governance may increasingly take the form of shared international frameworks, where countries align on baseline standards for safety, compliance, and market access to reduce regulatory fragmentation.

At the same time, a new policy tension is emerging: competition between jurisdictions to attract innovation while still enforcing safeguards. This could lead to regulatory blocs forming different approaches, some prioritizing rapid innovation, others emphasizing stricter oversight. The outcome will depend on whether global coordination can keep pace with industry expansion without turning regulation into a race to the bottom or a barrier to entry for smaller players.

Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be considered trading or investment advice. Nothing herein should be construed as financial, legal, or tax advice. Trading or investing in cryptocurrencies carries a considerable risk of financial loss. Always conduct due diligence. 

Enjoyed this? Bookmark DeFi Planet, explore related topics, and follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and CoinMarketCap Community for seamless access to high-quality industry insights.

Take control of your crypto portfolio with DEFI PLANET PRO, DeFi Planet’s suite of analytics tools.”