California Overturns Ban on Political Crypto Donations

The Fair Political Practices Commission of California has walked back a previous ban against crypto donations to political campaigners.

article-image

California State Capitol | Source: Shutterstock

share
  • The state of California has overturned a near four-year ban against political crypto donations
  • Crypto contributions will need to be verified via a name, address and other revealing details

California’s political campaign financing watchdog approved measures Thursday allowing state and local offices the right to raise funds using crypto once more.

Previous regulation had denied political campaigners the right to raise or receive funds via crypto. The ruling was repealed in late May.

Thanks to a recent vote by California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), those running for office may now receive funding in the nascent asset class — provided it’s converted to fiat immediately.

The FPPC’s motion on “Regulation 18421.2 Cryptocurrency Contributions,” put forth last month, reverses a ban implemented during crypto’s prior bear market in November 2018.

An unrelated financial limit on campaign contributions remains in place for California, which now joins 12 other states and the District of Colombia in approving crypto donations.

Concerns over how crypto could interfere with campaign transparency led the FPPC to deny its use for political campaigns, though the digital asset industry has since matured significantly since the almost four-year ban.

“In drafting this legislation, we had to address the inherent concerns with cryptocurrency and the opportunity it presents for illegal contributions,” FPPC’s general counsel David Bainbridge said in a live-streamed commission meeting on Thursday.

Political donations made using crypto must be conducted via a US-based crypto payments processor or “other service” with strict know-your-customer measures and answerable to subpoena requests for records.

Anonymous donations in crypto to political committees will be barred and those individuals contributing will be subject to identification constraints including the collection of names, addresses, occupations, and employers of each contributor at the time the donation is made.

“The campaign committee is responsible for all reporting,” an FPPC spokesperson told Blockworks in an email when asked if politicians and political candidates would need to obtain the identification of the donor. “It would still be required to have the name of the donor who contributed in crypto.”


Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:

Tags

Decoding crypto and the markets. Daily, with Byron Gilliam.

Upcoming Events

Javits Center North | 445 11th Ave

Tues - Thurs, March 24 - 26, 2026

Blockworks’ Digital Asset Summit (DAS) will feature conversations between the builders, allocators, and legislators who will shape the trajectory of the digital asset ecosystem in the US and abroad.

recent research

Research Report Templates (3).png

Research

South Korea is emerging as one of the most important global hubs for regulated digital assets, and Upbit sits at the center of this shift. Naver’s proposed acquisition could create the country’s dominant super app for payments, trading, and digital finance. This report breaks down the numbers, the regulatory tailwinds, the economics of the deal, and why the merger may unlock one of the most attractive asymmetries in Korea’s public markets.

article-image

Lido unveils a new buyback plan while BTC treasury companies slip below mNAV — can either model can truly return value?

article-image

If financial nihilism has driven you into memecoins, zero-day options, and sports betting, consider financial optimism instead

article-image

A new Sui-based protocol promises to unlock Bitcoin’s idle liquidity and eliminate wrapped-token risk

article-image

Could blockchain rails finally realize Ted Nelson’s non-linear, pro-creator “docuverse”?

article-image

What does Uniswap’s proposal to activate protocol fees and unify incentives mean for UNI token holders?

article-image

A recent mistrial illustrates how juries need more background information when it comes to judging complex systems like Ethereum