The Crypto Election: Crypto, Disinformation, and Presidential Politics

Cryptocurrency has become a central issue in the 2024 US election, intersecting with campaign finance, election integrity, and security. 

Former President Trump openly supports crypto, having spoken at key Bitcoin conferences and even launching his own crypto project. Vice President Kamala Harris, seemingly more reticent, called for the US to maintain its dominance in blockchain technology in a recent speech on the economy. Both candidates, and the PACs that support them, are accepting some form of cryptocurrency. This development presents new opportunities for political engagement—but also introduces challenges related to regulation and security.

Election interference and disinformation risks

While candidates in the US are developing policy positions and talking points for how they might support or regulate digital assets, threat actors like Russia are—in part—using cryptocurrencies to send funds in support of election interference and disinformation campaigns. 

According to TRM’s Global Head of Policy, Ari Redbord, “All six high profile election interference cases since 2016 have involved the use of cryptocurrencies. This underscores a move by illicit actors—particularly those with connections to Russia, who are looking to new technology—to raise and move funds.”

The six cases Redbord alludes to involve a diverse lineup of illicit actors, including Russian news outlets, paramilitary groups, hackers, and Russian intelligence services. “Russia has fostered an illicit finance ecosystem of darknet markets, non-compliant crypto businesses, ransomware, and paramilitary groups,” Redbord explained. “All these pieces of Russia’s money laundering puzzle play a role in interference and disinformation.”

Russian-fueled disinformation and election interference campaigns have become part of the last two election cycles. The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) and the Department of Justice have targeted individuals and entities associated with Russian election interference and disinformation.

Major election interference cases all involve cryptocurrencies

Cryptocurrencies have long played a role in Russian election interference and disinformation. According to TRM’s Redbord, these were the six most high-profile cases involving the use of cryptocurrencies since 2016:

• Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) – 2016 US.Election
• Project Lakhta – 2018 US Midterm Elections
• SouthFront – Disinformation Campaign (2021)
• Task Force Rusich – Russia-Ukraine Conflict (2022)
• Doppelganger Campaign – 2024 US Election
• RT (Russia Today) and RaHDit – Global Disinformation Networks (2024)

Disinformation campaigns funded via cryptocurrency typically involve a network of facilitators—including exchanges, domain registrars, hosting providers, payment processors, digital marketing agencies, deepfake producers, social media amplifiers, and "articles for hire" services. 

{{fyicard-thecryptoelection-1}}

In its March 2024 release announcing sanctions, Treasury wrote, “The Russian government employs an array of tools, including malign influence campaigns and illicit cyber activities, to undermine the interests of the United States and its allies and partners.” Treasury continued, “Russia routinely uses its intelligence services, proxies, and influence tools in these efforts. Russia’s influence actors have increasingly adapted their methods to hide their involvement by developing a vast ecosystem of Russian proxy websites, personas, and organizations which give the false appearance of being independent news sources.”

Russia’s deepfake playbook

In September 2024, OFAC sanctioned key figures from RT, Russia's state-funded news media outlet, for using a variety of methods—including AI-generated deepfakes and disinformation—to influence American audiences. These actors covertly recruited US influencers, using front companies to mask their ties to the Russian government and sow distrust in US election processes.

The Kremlin's malign influence operations are wide-reaching, employing covert cyber activities and proxy websites to spread disinformation. A key player in this effort was Doppelgänger, a Russian-linked influence operation that used deepfake content to push disinformation. Doppelgänger, identified in 2022, operated through a network of websites and fake personas designed to look like independent news sources, deceiving audiences into believing they were consuming legitimate media.

The OFAC designations also targeted executives at RT, including Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan, who oversaw operations aimed at disguising Russia’s involvement in the disinformation campaigns. Simonyan and other executives implemented a large-scale influence operation on US social media to further Moscow's agenda. Additionally, the pro-Kremlin hacktivist group RaHDit, led by Aleksey Garashchenko, played a critical role in using cyber tools to enhance Russia’s ability to conduct these influence operations.

Another central entity in this effort was ANO Dialog, a Russian nonprofit organization linked to the Doppelgänger network. ANO Dialog used AI technology and deepfakes to create fake posts on popular social media platforms, targeting US election-related discussions. The organization’s Director General, Vladimir Tabak, coordinated with Russian government officials to amplify disinformation through fake news sites like "Reliable Recent News" (RRN) and “War on Fakes.” This included the use of deepfake content designed to manipulate public perception and spread false narratives about the US election process.

Russian interference in the 2016 US election

One of the most well-known cases linking cryptocurrency to election interference involved Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), which played a central role in spear-phishing attacks, spreading disinformation, and hacking during the 2016 US elections. The GRU used bitcoin to fund its operations, purchasing servers, domains, and other tools necessary for these activities. 

According to the indictment, the GRU bitcoin mining operation funded the purchase of servers and domains used in the GRU’s spear phishing campaigns. Under the persona "Guccifer 2.0," the GRU claimed responsibility for hacking the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaking documents to the media, WikiLeaks, and other outlets. The GRU also purchased bitcoin through the P2P platform LocalBitcoins, which it used to purchase a VPN to log into the @Guccifer_2 Twitter account. The remaining funds from the same Bitcoin address were then used to lease a Malaysian server that hosted the dcleaks.com website. In March 2018, the US The Department of the Treasury sanctioned Russian cyber actors for interference with the 2016 US elections and malicious cyber attacks.

How disinformation campaigns use cryptocurrencies

In March 2024, OFAC sanctioned two individuals and two entities for services they provided to the Russian government in connection with a disinformation campaign, including attempting to impersonate legitimate media outlets.

Specifically, OFAC designated Russian national Ilya Andreevich Gambashidze for his role in foreign malign influence campaigns that were conducted at the direction of the Kremlin. Treasury asserted that Gambashidze and his company, the Social Design Agency (SDA), along with Nikolai Aleksandrovich Tupikin, the CEO and current owner of Russia-based Company Group Structura LLC (Structura), were involved in implementing a campaign that impersonated news websites in Europe. Treasury also called out Gambashidze and Tupikin’s roles in creating fake videos and social media accounts in order to spread pro-Russian messaging. The campaign, which was reportedly conducted in October 2022, involved over 60 websites impersonating legitimate media.

In its sanctions designation, OFAC included a number of cryptocurrency addresses belonging to Gambashidze, including two TRON (TRX) addresses: TMGLqRQ4twjW8wJhVH1mQR7nUThpGHUsN3 and TEFph7dZoUN5233cGEzF6XFwRpjPF8fQDS.

The first address (TMGLq) was active between April 2022 and March 2024. The vast majority of the funds received by the address came from the sanctioned Russian exchange Garantex.

TRM traced several payments through the cross-chain swap service, including one made to a Bitcoin wallet that paid a US-based payment processor—a potential method of paying for internet infrastructure.

The second address (TEFph) was only active between February and March 2024. It appears the vast majority of funds were sent from a hot wallet likely associated with an exchange that has also made significant transfers to other Russian cryptocurrency traders, exchanges, and services.

Current state: Regulatory frameworks for crypto donations

Crypto, however, is not only used to fund election interference. It is also used, in part, to fund campaigns. 

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) first allowed political campaigns to accept cryptocurrency donations in 2014, classifying them as "in-kind contributions." Candidates like Senator Rand Paul in 2016 and Andrew Yang in 2020 were early adopters, accepting bitcoin and converting it into US dollars. Fast forward to 2024: Today, both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are embracing cryptocurrency donations, utilizing third-party processors to ensure compliance with FEC regulations.

State regulations vary widely. Currently, 14 states permit cryptocurrency donations for state campaigns. Tennessee has statutory laws permitting these contributions, while Colorado has updated its regulations to accommodate them. However, states like California have banned crypto donations, citing transparency concerns. In contrast, Ohio has gone a step further by setting up its own Bitcoin payment system to facilitate tax payments. Despite these advances, 34 states and the District of Columbia have neither enacted nor considered legislation on crypto donations, creating a vast gray area.

Transparency and anonymity: A double-edged sword

Cryptocurrency's pseudonymous nature presents challenges for transparency in campaign finance. A notable example occurred during the 2022 midterm elections, when FTX made significant donations to both Republican and Democratic campaigns. While these donations were legal and reported, the rapid bankruptcy of FTX later revealed the opaque nature of funding sources. Concerns arose about whether the origins of these funds could be fully verified, particularly when some assets were held in offshore entities.

Further concerns include the potential use of cryptocurrencies to conceal the identities of donors. While Super PACs (political action committees) are required to disclose their donors to the FEC, donors can maintain anonymity by funneling money through other organizations, such as nonprofits (e.g. 501(c)(4) organizations), which are not required to disclose their donors. This practice is sometimes referred to as "dark money" because it allows donors to remain hidden from the public. 

Since blockchain transactions can be made without revealing personal information, crypto donations can skirt traditional transparency requirements in campaign finance. This has led to fears that foreign entities could exploit these characteristics to influence election outcomes covertly. While those accepting cryptocurrency may use blockchain intelligence or employ “know your customer” (KYC) protocols, without compliance controls in place, donors can potentially send funds anonymously. 

The future of cryptocurrency use in political campaigns 

According to an August 2024 report by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, the crypto industry accounts for almost half the money contributed by corporations to PACs so far in 2024. According to the report, crypto companies have supplied 48% of the USD 248 million of corporate money donated to influence federal elections this cycle. Fairshake, the crypto industry's dominant political action committee, says it has raised USD 169 million. Public Citizen goes with a larger figure (USD 202 million) based on Federal Election Commission data—but that includes a double-counting of cryptocurrency-based contributions from individual donors, according to the OpenSecrets research group. This is a significant increase from the USD 15 million donated in 2020.

This level of involvement underscores the crypto community's efforts to shape policy by supporting pro-crypto candidates and opposing regulatory crackdowns. The surge in crypto donations reflects the growing influence of digital assets on the political landscape—and the desire among industry participants to protect their interests in a rapidly evolving regulatory environment.

Cryptocurrencies offer both opportunities and risks in the context of elections. They provide new avenues for political engagement and fundraising—but also pose challenges related to transparency, security, and potential misuse in election interference. 

The involvement of high-profile candidates like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, along with record-breaking crypto donations in the 2024 election cycle, reflects the growing mainstream acceptance of digital assets. As the election season unfolds, it will serve as a critical test of how regulators, law enforcement, and the crypto community can navigate this complex landscape to safeguard the democratic process.