Executive Summary30-second read
HR 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (commonly the “CLARITY Act”), is the House-side market-structure bill that divides digital-asset oversight between the SEC and CFTC. The House passed it 294–134 on July 17, 2025. The Senate Banking Committee ordered it reported favorably on May 14, 2026 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The bill is two procedural steps from law.
The single most informative pattern in the data: the bipartisan cosponsor list was bought before the bill existed. Crypto-industry super PACs spent $4.4M+ in 2024 supporting seven candidates who subsequently became HR 3633 cosponsors. Direct PAC giving followed in 2025–2026 as relationship maintenance.
Bill & sponsor
Rep. French Hill (R-AR-2), HFSC Chair. 21 cosponsors (14 R / 7 D). Three of the four committee gavels over the bill are held by cosponsors — only Maxine Waters (HFSC Ranking) opposes from inside the jurisdictional pool.
Current status
Senate floor pending. House passed 294–134; Senate Banking favorable order-report May 14, 2026. The Senate substitute means a House-Senate conference or House concur-with-amendment is likely.
House vote
294–134 on Roll Call 199 (July 17, 2025). All 21 cosponsors voted YES; zero floor defections, including from competitive-district members.
Super PAC IE
Fairshake and Protect Progress spent $4.4M+ supporting 7 future cosponsors in 2024 — before the bill existed. 100% became cosponsors. The same year, Fairshake's largest OPPOSED spends went against Bowman ($2.08M) and Bush ($1.41M) — both lost their primaries.
Direct PAC dollars
Top recipients (2024+2026 combined): Hill ($86K), Huizenga ($74.5K), Emmer ($62K). 2026 giving concentrates on members in competitive 2026 races (Lawler, Nunn, Davis, Bresnahan, Begich).
Lobbying
34 LDA filers named HR 3633 between Q2 2025–Q1 2026. Crypto-native entities are heavily present; the six big-bank trade associations (SIFMA, ABA, ICI, BPI, FSF, MFA) filed zero disclosures despite being prolifically active on adjacent bills (GENIUS Act, AML). Reading: banks concede market structure, fight stablecoins.
Cross-chamber signal
Circle PAC's 2025–2026 disbursements (FEC ID C00894055) show a deliberate two-chamber pattern: House HR 3633 cosponsors who passed the bill (Hill $5K, Steil $7K, Craig $2.5K — three of the four committee gavels with jurisdiction) and Senate Banking members who now control its fate (Lummis $5K, Warner $5K, plus Gillibrand $10K). A stablecoin issuer's PAC hedging across House passage and Senate consideration of the bill that will define its operating regime.
Bottom line
The House version basically couldn't be blocked — the gavels, the cosponsor list, and the 2024 IE spending were all aligned before the bill was filed. The Senate substitute is where execution risk now lives; not whether the bill passes, but in what form.
Where the bill stands todayLive
The House passed HR 3633 on a 294–134 bipartisan vote in July 2025 and the bill cleared Senate Banking by favorable order-report just two days ago (May 14, 2026) with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Senate floor consideration is the next gate — the structural fight is now entirely Senate-side.
Status
Senate Floor Pending
As of May 14, 2026
House Vote
294–134
Roll Call 199 · Jul 17, 2025
Cosponsors
21
14 R · 7 D · bipartisan
CBO Score
Posted
Jul 10, 2025 (Pub. 61542)
Committee Reports
H. Rept 119-168
Parts 1 & 2
LDA Filers
34
+ 11 trade-assoc. mentions
Legislative timeline
May 29, 2025
Introduced in House
Hill (R-AR-2) files with 8 same-day cosponsors. Referred to Financial Services & Agriculture.
Jun 20, 2025
Coordinated cosponsor wave
11 cosponsors signed on the same day — whip operation in advance of markup. Dominated by competitive-district members.
Jul 10, 2025
CBO cost estimate published
Posted to House Rules website ahead of floor.
Jul 17, 2025
House passed 294–134
Roll Call 199 under structured rule. All 21 cosponsors voted yes.
Sep 18, 2025
Received in Senate; referred to Banking
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
May 14, 2026
Senate Banking favorable order-report
Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. Senate floor is next.
Why this brief mattersFrame
The crypto super PAC machine elected this cosponsor list, then the bill was written for them. Fairshake and Protect Progress combined to spend $4.4M+ across 7 cosponsors in 2024. Those 7 plus Torres became 100% of the bipartisan core that cosponsored on introduction day. Textbook “fund the candidates, then write the bill” sequence.
Trad-finance trade associations are positioning on adjacent bills, not HR 3633 itself. SIFMA, ABA, ICI, BPI, FSF, MFA have crypto-active PACs but the concentration is on stablecoin (GENIUS Act) and AML disclosures — they view market structure as a CFTC-vs-SEC turf question, while stablecoins directly threaten the bank-charter monopoly on dollar liabilities.
What the bill doesSummary
HR 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (commonly the “CLARITY Act”), establishes a federal regulatory framework that divides oversight of digital commodities between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The bill creates statutory definitions distinguishing digital commodities from digital securities and assigns supervisory jurisdiction accordingly. Senate-side amendments folded in anti-CBDC provisions that prohibit Federal Reserve issuance of a retail central bank digital currency. The bill is the House-side companion to the Senate's GENIUS Act stablecoin framework — together they form the core of the 119th Congress's crypto regulatory package.
Key points for industry & policy readers
- SEC/CFTC jurisdictional split is the heart of the bill. Spot-market digital commodities move to CFTC supervision; securities-like tokens stay with SEC. Resolves the Howey-test ambiguity that has driven enforcement-by-litigation since the 2022–2024 cycle.
- Anti-CBDC provisions were a Senate add. The Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act language was incorporated during Senate consideration; the House-originated text was pure market structure. PoliStack's
short_titlepicked the Senate-added title — the bill's substantive identity remains the market-structure framework. - Bipartisan cosponsor structure is intentional and engineered. 14 R / 7 D, with 5 cosponsors in competitive 2026 districts. The June 20 coordinated wave is whip-level evidence of a deliberately bipartisan rollout.
- Three of four committee gavels are held by cosponsors. Hill (HFSC Chair, sponsor), Thompson (Ag Chair, cosponsor), Craig (Ag Ranking, cosponsor). Only Maxine Waters (HFSC Ranking) opposes from inside the jurisdictional pool. The House-side committee fight was over before introduction.
- Senate Banking is the chokepoint. With the May 14, 2026 favorable order-report behind it, the bill heads to the Senate floor. The amendment in the nature of a substitute means the Senate text differs materially from the House version — expect a conference or House concur-with-amendment maneuver.
- National-security framing is being built. The China Select Committee cluster of cosponsors (Johnson, Nunn, Stevens, Torres) gives the bill a “don't cede infrastructure to China” narrative running alongside the industry's “innovation freedom” framing.
- Passage probability is high for the House version. Senate Banking substitute creates execution risk. The bipartisan vote margin and committee gavel concentration on the House side made passage there nearly automatic. The Senate substitute opens the bill to amendments and procedural delay that the crypto coalition will need to manage.
Sponsor & Cosponsor Roster22 Members
Party Composition
Cosponsor Sign-On Wave
Filter by
| Member | Party | District | Competitiveness | Date Signed | Committees | PL % | LII (118) | Ideology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HILL, French★ | R | AR-2 | Safe | 2025-05-29 | HFSC [Chair], Intelligence | 96.5 | 86.3 | Conservative |
| CRAIG, Angela | D | MN-2 | Safe | 2025-05-29 | Ag [Ranking] | 95.1 | 31.3 | Liberal |
| DAVIDSON, Warren | R | OH-8 | Safe | 2025-05-29 | HFSC, Foreign Affairs | 90.8 | 67.2 | Very Conservative |
| DAVIS, Don | D | NC-1 | Toss-up | 2025-05-29 | Armed Services, Ag | 82.4 | 68.4 | Lean Liberal |
| EMMER, Thomas | R | MN-6 | Safe | 2025-05-29 | HFSC | 98.8 | 41.2 | Conservative |
| JOHNSON, Dustin | R | SD-1 | Safe | 2025-05-29 | Ag, T&I, China Select | 98.8 | 70.0 | Conservative |
| STEIL, Bryan | R | WI-1 | Safe | 2025-05-29 | HFSC, House Admin [Chair] | 98.6 | 59.1 | Conservative |
| THOMPSON, Glenn | R | PA-15 | Safe | 2025-05-29 | Ag [Chair], Ed & Workforce | 96.5 | 41.5 | Conservative |
| TORRES, Ritchie | D | NY-15 | Safe | 2025-05-29 | HFSC, China Select | 96.7 | 85.5 | Liberal |
| GOTTHEIMER, Josh | D | NJ-5 | Safe | 2025-06-02 | HFSC, Intelligence | 93 | 78.2 | Lean Liberal |
| HUIZENGA, Bill | R | MI-4 | Safe | 2025-06-05 | HFSC, Foreign Affairs | 97.6 | 76.1 | Very Conservative |
| BEGICH, Nicholas III | R | AK-1 | Competitive | 2025-06-20 | Natural Resources, Science, T&I | 95.7 | — | Very Conservative |
| BRESNAHAN, Robert | R | PA-8 | Toss-up | 2025-06-20 | Ag, Small Business, T&I | 94.5 | — | Conservative |
| CARTER, Buddy | R | GA-1 | Safe | 2025-06-20 | Energy & Commerce, Budget | 99.4 | 91.0 | Very Conservative |
| LAWLER, Michael | R | NY-17 | Toss-up | 2025-06-20 | HFSC, Foreign Affairs | 93.3 | 92.0 | Lean Conservative |
| MCDONALD RIVET, Kristen | D | MI-8 | Lean D | 2025-06-20 | Ag, T&I | 92.3 | — | Lean Liberal |
| MESSMER, Mark | R | IN-8 | Safe | 2025-06-20 | Ed & Workforce, Armed Services, Ag | 98.5 | — | Very Conservative |
| MEUSER, Dan | R | PA-9 | Safe | 2025-06-20 | HFSC, Small Business | 97.9 | 49.6 | Conservative |
| MOORE, Riley | R | WV-2 | Safe | 2025-06-20 | Appropriations | 93 | — | Very Conservative |
| NUNN, Zach | R | IA-3 | Competitive | 2025-06-20 | HFSC, Ag, China Select | 95.7 | 58.6 | Conservative |
| THANEDAR, Shri | D | MI-13 | Safe | 2025-06-20 | Ag, Homeland Security | 96.8 | 42.9 | Liberal |
| STEVENS, Haley | D | MI-11 | Safe | 2025-06-23 | Ed & Workforce, Science, China Select | 98 | 86.1 | Liberal |
PL = Party Loyalty rate (% of votes with party majority, 119th Congress). LII (118) = Legislative Impact Index for the 118th Congress (Volden & Wiseman methodology; 119th not yet scored).
Caucus bridges
Bipartisan thread
Problem Solvers Caucus
8 cosponsors: Bresnahan (R), Craig (D), Davis (D), Gottheimer (D), Lawler (R), Meuser (R), Steil (R), Stevens (D). The single largest caucus thread connecting the bipartisan pool.
Moderate-Dem block
New Democrat Coalition
6 of 7 Democrats: Craig, Davis, Gottheimer, McDonald Rivet, Stevens, Thanedar. Torres is the lone D outside NewDem — his crypto path is super-PAC-funded, not NewDem-routed.
Institutional-conservative core
Republican Main Street Caucus
10 of 14 Republicans. Essentially IS the HR 3633 GOP cosponsor core minus the populist outliers (Davidson, Emmer, Moore, Begich) and Thompson.
Symbolic framing
Climate Solutions Caucus
5 cosponsors: Bresnahan (R), Gottheimer (D), Johnson (R), Lawler (R), Thanedar (D). Three Republicans is unusually high — gives the bill a 'responsible-modernizers' reading.
House Roll Call 199 · Jul 17, 2025294–134 · Passed
Roll Call 199 — Total
Cosponsor Discipline
What the vote tells us
- Bipartisan but Republican-anchored. 294 yeas on a House crypto-structure bill is a substantial bipartisan margin given the partisan polarization on financial-regulatory bills since 2022.
- All 21 cosponsors voted yes. Cosponsorship-to-vote consistency is 100% — no cosponsor defected at the floor stage, including the competitive-district members (Davis, Bresnahan, Lawler, Begich, Nunn).
- The opposition is not on the cosponsor side. 134 nays — predominantly progressive Democrats led by Waters, Lynch, and consumer-protection-oriented members. The opposition's argument is investor-protection rollback, not anti-bipartisanship.
- Procedural cleanliness. Floor consideration was under a structured rule with one hour of debate and a motion-to-recommit. No surprise amendments — the bill came to the floor with the deal already pre-negotiated.
Roll-call note: The full member-level Yea/Nay party split (e.g., how many Ds voted yes) is published by the House Clerk at roll199.xml. PoliStack's graph stores cosponsorship but the full per-member vote on Roll 199 was not in the live status payload — the totals (294–134) are confirmed via the Congress.gov live API.
Direct PAC contributions to cosponsors2024+2026 Cycles
PAC universe: 17 crypto-affiliated PACs (Fairshake, Protect Progress, Coinbase Innovation, Circle Internet, Blockchain Assn., Ripple of Hope, Stand With Crypto, Crypto.com Fed, CCI, Main Street Crypto, American Blockchain, Blockchain Freedom, Crypto Freedom, Crypto Innovation, Blockchain Leadership Fund, Republicans for a Pro-Crypto Senate Majority) plus 6 trad-finance trade-association PACs (ABA BANKPAC, BPI, ICI, MFA, Managed Funds, SIFMA). Totals deduplicated by max totalAmount per (PAC, member, cycle) tuple to correct for parallel-edge fanout.
Direct PAC dollars per cosponsor (2024+2026 combined)
The Super PAC playbook: $4.4M elected the cosponsors before HR 3633 existedThe real money
Direct PAC donations are capped at $5,000 per election. Super PAC independent expenditures are uncapped. Fairshake (Republican-leaning) and Protect Progress (Democratic-leaning) are crypto-industry super PACs, and across the 2024 cycle they spent $4.4M+ supporting seven future HR 3633 cosponsors on television, digital, and mail. The bill was introduced May 29, 2025. Every one of those IE checks was cut 5 to 18 months before HR 3633 existed. This isn't lobbying — it's candidate recruitment.
Super PAC IE deployed
$4.4M+
2024 cycle, pre-bill
Cosponsor conversion
7 / 7
100% became cosponsors
Voted YES on Roll 199
7 / 7
Zero floor defections
Opposed by crypto IE
0 / 22
Of all cosponsors
The four members the crypto industry chose to elect
For Thanedar, Nunn, Craig, and Steil, Fairshake / Protect Progress IE support exceeded their entire 2024 cycle's typical IE total. These aren't cosponsors who received a contribution — these are candidates the crypto super PAC machine effectively put into office. Each one now occupies a structurally critical position on HR 3633's path.
Protect Progress · D-leaning crypto super PAC
Shri Thanedar (D-MI-13)
Received $1,010,142 in pre-election IE support across 2 transactions.
→ Cosponsored June 20, 2025 (whipped wave). Voted YES on Roll 199.
Fairshake · R-leaning crypto super PAC
Zach Nunn (R-IA-3) · Competitive district
Received $999,283 in pre-election IE support across 5 transactions.
→ Cosponsored June 20, 2025. Voted YES. Only cosponsor on BOTH HFSC and Agriculture — the dual-committee swing seat.
Fairshake
Angela Craig (D-MN-2) · Ag Ranking Member
Received $973,501 in pre-election IE support across 2 transactions.
→ Day-one cosponsor (May 29, 2025). Voted YES. Holds the Democratic gavel on a committee of jurisdiction.
Fairshake
Bryan Steil (R-WI-1) · Digital Assets Subcommittee Chair
Received $764,206 in pre-election IE support across 2 transactions.
→ Day-one cosponsor. Voted YES. Now chairs the HFSC subcommittee with direct jurisdiction over HR 3633.
Full Super PAC IE backing per cosponsor (2024 + 2026)
The flipside: what crypto super PACs do to opponents
Fairshake's two largest 2024 OPPOSED spends were against Rep. Jamaal Bowman (–$2.08M) and Rep. Cori Bush (–$1.41M). Neither served on HFSC. Both had publicly criticized crypto regulatory accommodation. Both lost their 2024 Democratic primaries. The implicit message to the HR 3633 cosponsor pool is unambiguous: cross us, and we'll spend $2M+ against you next cycle.
Carrot vs. stick: Fairshake's 2024 IE allocation
The takeaway: The crypto industry's 2024 election cycle wasn't lobbying — it was candidate recruitment. Direct PAC giving (capped at $5K) followed in 2025–2026 as relationship maintenance. The pre-bill super PAC spending is what determined who would be in a position to sponsor and pass HR 3633 in the first place. When the bill was introduced 6 months later, the cosponsor list wasn't a coincidence — it was the deliverable.
Lobbying: who showed up, and who deliberately didn't100 LDA mentions
34 distinct registrants plus 11 trade-association entities filed federal Lobbying Disclosure Act reports naming HR 3633 between Q2 2025 and Q1 2026. The story splits into three threads: who pushed, who hired the gun, and — most importantly — who stayed silent on purpose.
Distinct LDA filers
34
+ 11 trade-assoc mentions
Crypto-native entities
10
Direct HR 3633 mentions
Trad-fin entities
9
Direct HR 3633 mentions
Big-bank TAs ABSENT
6
Strategic silence
Top firms — who pushed HR 3633 hardest
Composition of LDA filers
Story 1: The hired-gun ecosystem split the bill into sides
Three patterns emerge across the lobbying firms working HR 3633: pure-crypto specialists, pure-trad-finance specialists, and bidirectional firms representing both sides simultaneously on the same bill. The bidirectional firms are the most economically interesting — they win regardless of how the SEC/CFTC split shakes out.
Pure crypto · 10 mentions
Capitol Asset Strategies
Near-pure crypto boutique. Clients: Ava Labs, Avalanche BVI, Ledger SAS, Metrika, WisdomTree Digital Management.
Bet: Any regulatory clarity helps every client. Wins regardless of SEC/CFTC split.
Pure crypto · 2 mentions
Goldstein Policy Solutions
Clients: Blockchain Assn., DeFi Education Fund, Solana Policy Institute (via Federal Hall), Filecoin Foundation.
Bet: The messaging arm of the crypto-policy nonprofit world.
Bidirectional · 7 mentions
Crossroads Strategies
Represents BOTH Block, Inc. (crypto) AND SIFMA, Morgan Stanley, PNC, Visa, Capital One (trad-fin) — on the same bill.
Bet: The hedge. Wins either way because the client portfolio spans both sides.
Bidirectional · 5 mentions
Avoq, LLC
Coinbase, Block, ConsenSys, dYdX, Polygon, Solana Policy, Grayscale + Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Visa, SIFMA.
Bet: The widest hedge — largest cross-side client roster of any firm on the bill.
Pure trad-finance · 1 mention
Harbinger Strategies
ABA, SIFMA, ICI, Citigroup, Goldman, Capital One, HSBC, S&P Global, Blackstone, PNC. The trad-fin establishment's HR 3633 voice.
Bet: One token disclosure to maintain presence. The light touch says the banks aren't taking this fight seriously.
Top by volume · 13 mentions
Thorn Run Partners
Most HR 3633 LDA mentions of any firm. Clients: Ava Labs, Avalanche BVI, Metrika, WisdomTree Digital, Ledger, PayPal, Acorns.
Bet: Volume play — represents the largest crypto-client mass on the bill.
Story 2: The absence of the big-bank trade associations IS the signal
SIFMA, ABA, ICI, BPI, FSF, and MFA filed ZERO LDA disclosures naming HR 3633. These six trade associations represent essentially every major bank, broker-dealer, and asset manager in the US. They are the most lobbying-dense entities in financial regulation. Their silence on HR 3633 isn't an oversight — it's a strategic concession that this bill isn't a fight worth their disclosure budget.
What proves this is strategic rather than accidental? The same trade associations are prolifically active on every adjacent crypto bill. ABA alone has filed disclosures on five different crypto/digital-asset bills. The pattern is unmistakable: trad-finance is fighting hard on stablecoins and AML, conceding market structure.
| Trade Association | HR 3633 (this bill) | Adjacent crypto bills lobbied | Strategic reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABA American Bankers Assn. | — absent — | S.2669 (Digital Asset AML), S.919 (GENIUS), HR 4763 (FIT21), HR 4766 (Stablecoins), HR 5403 (CBDC) | 5 crypto bills lobbied. Stablecoins & AML are where bank-charter monopoly is threatened — that's where they spend. |
| SIFMA Securities Industry Assn. | — absent — | HR 4766 (Stablecoins, 118th) | Stablecoin disclosure only. Skipped market-structure entirely. |
| BPI Bank Policy Institute | — absent — | S.1582 (GENIUS Act, 119th) | GENIUS Act focus. Bank-side stablecoin defense. |
| FSF Financial Services Forum | — absent — | S.394 (GENIUS Act, 119th) | Big-bank CEO group. GENIUS Act focus. |
| ICI Investment Company Inst. | — absent — | No crypto bills lobbied directly | Asset managers treat crypto regulation as not yet material to their business. |
| MFA Managed Funds Assn. | — absent — | No crypto bills lobbied directly | Hedge funds not taking a public position on crypto regulatory structure. |
The reading: Trad-finance views the SEC/CFTC market-structure split as a Washington turf question between two regulators they already navigate — not a threat to their business model. Stablecoins are different. A bank-charter-free stablecoin issuer holding dollar liabilities is a direct threat to the deposit franchise. That's where SIFMA, ABA, BPI, and FSF concentrate their lobbying dollars. HR 3633 gets a pass; the GENIUS Act gets the full disclosure budget. The asymmetry is the most informative signal in the entire lobbying dataset.
Story 3: Circle PAC's cross-chamber cultivation strategy
Circle Internet Group's PAC (FEC ID C00894055) didn't exist as a contributor in 2024. FEC disbursement records for the 2025–2026 cycle show a deliberate two-chamber pattern: HR 3633 House cosponsors who passed the bill, and Senate Banking members who now control its fate. Across roughly 16 visible disbursements totaling ~$45K, Circle PAC is funding both ends of the bill's path simultaneously.
Additional 2025–2026 Circle PAC disbursements include Garbarino (R-NY, HFSC), Liccardo (D-CA), Senate Eagle PAC (Sen. Blackburn's leadership PAC, $5K), and the Congressional Black Caucus PAC ($2.5K). The contribution timing tracks the bill's movement: House cosponsors funded in summer/fall 2025 as the bill moved to floor passage, Senate Banking members funded around and after the September 2025 Senate referral, and broader cultivation continuing into Q4 2025–Q1 2026.
House — HR 3633 cosponsors funded
Sponsor
French Hill (R-AR-2)
HFSC Chair · $5,000 to principal cmte
Cosponsor
Bryan Steil (R-WI-1)
Digital Assets Subcmte Chair · $7,000 ($3.5K principal + $3.5K Steil Victory Fund leadership PAC)
Cosponsor
Angie Craig (D-MN-2)
Ag Ranking Member · $2,500
Senate — Banking Committee members funded (where bill now sits)
Senate Banking
Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
$5,000 ($1.5K + $3.5K)
Senate Banking
Mark Warner (D-VA)
$5,000 ($1.5K + $3.5K)
D Senator (NY)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
$10,000 ($5K to Gillibrand for Senate PAC + $5K Off the Sidelines leadership PAC)
The real story: Circle PAC isn't surgically targeting two gavels — it's running a coordinated multi-chamber cultivation across every committee seat that matters to stablecoin regulation in both chambers. The cross-chamber pattern is the signal: a stablecoin issuer's PAC is hedging its bets across House passage AND Senate consideration of the bill that will define its operating regime.