Connect with us

Business

How cryptocurrency executives helped decide the California Senate primary

Published

on

How cryptocurrency executives helped decide the California Senate primary

In the days before the California Senate primary, political ads calling Rep. Katie Porter (D-Irvine) a fake, an actor and a hypocrite inundated social media platforms and television programs.

The $10-million bill for the advertisements, which were designed to bump Porter out of the race for a rare open Senate seat, was footed by a super PAC called Fairshake that is funded by cryptocurrency companies and their executives.

As primary results rolled in that showed Porter a distant third behind Rep. Adam B. Schiff of Burbank and Republican Steve Garvey, Fairshake boasted that the Orange County lawmaker’s alliance with mentor Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a vocal skeptic of cryptocurrency, had “ended her career in Congress.”

Porter later blamed her loss on “an onslaught of billionaires spending millions to rig this election,” a not-too-subtle allusion to the crypto group’s major donors.

Advertisement

After two years of bad headlines, including the conviction of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried on fraud charges, the cryptocurrency industry is back in the political arena, flexing its significant cash reserves in the 2024 election cycle. The California Senate race is one of many in which the industry has signaled that it will boost candidates who support more favorable crypto laws in Washington, and oust those who don’t.

“That amount of money buys you a seat at the political table in Washington, D.C., and that’s their goal,” said Dennis Kelleher, chief executive and co-founder of Better Markets, a financial watchdog group that has been a frequent opponent of the crypto industry in Washington.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has asserted in court that cryptocurrency should be regulated like stocks and bonds, which would require trading firms to follow a wide range of disclosure and investor protection laws. The industry has lobbied for more favorable regulations, including allowing the markets to be regulated by the smaller Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Fairshake was the largest outside spender in the Senate primary, but to what extent it moved the needle is a matter of debate. Schiff and his allies spent prodigiously to boost Garvey among Republican voters, blanketing the state with ads that described the retired baseball star as a two-time Trump voter who was “too conservative for California.”

Under California’s unusual primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary advance to the November election, regardless of their political affiliation. Schiff’s team gambled that in a deep-blue state, his path to victory would be easier if he faced a Republican.

Advertisement

“When you look at everything else going on in that race, I’m extremely skeptical that they had any impact,” Kelleher said of the cryptocurrency ads. He cited Schiff’s campaign strategy of boosting Garvey and the major support from leaders in the Democratic Party, including Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), as well as Schiff’s long resume and Porter’s status as a relative newcomer in Democratic politics.

Polling from the week before the election found Garvey and Schiff in a fight for first, although Porter received a lower share of votes than polls predicted. Who will fill the remainder of the late Dianne Feinstein’s term in the Senate, as well as a six-year term that starts in 2025, will be decided on the November ballot.

Sawyer Hackett, a spokesman for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which backed Porter, said the $10-million ad buy “probably contributed a significant amount” to Porter’s loss. In California’s costly media markets, he said, $10 million doesn’t win or lose a race, but “it’s certainly a major factor, especially when you’re talking about the final weeks of the election when Democratic voters are considering the options in front of them.”

He said he wasn’t surprised to see the crypto industry spending against Porter, who has a “somewhat minor” track record on crypto issues but has proved herself willing to take on major industries to defend consumers. The crypto industry, he said, is “targeting candidates with an overall brand that seems to be focused on antitrust and pro-consumer policy.”

Fairshake’s major donors include venture capital giants Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, who have invested in dozens of crypto companies; crypto investors Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss; and Brian Armstrong, the chief executive of Coinbase, which is listed on the Nasdaq market.

Advertisement

Coinbase, which has the highest trading volume of any crypto exchange in the U.S., is working this year to make sure that “candidates and incumbents continue to think about crypto as an opportunity to really make a difference to change, to protect jobs, to protect national security,” said Kara Calvert, the company’s head of U.S. policy.

Coinbase will be working to “educate” members of Congress through November, she said, so that “when they get asked about crypto at a town hall, or when they get asked about crypto by Fairshake, or by any of the rest of these organizations, that they know what they’re talking about.”

On the afternoon before election day, a group called Stand With Crypto hosted a get-out-the-vote rally for crypto owners in Los Angeles. A line stretched around the block on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame outside the Bourbon Room bar for an event headlined by the rapper Nas, who was an early investor in Coinbase.

Inside, as guests ate sliders and drank Sofia Coppola wine, Armstrong told the crowd that they needed to vote to send a “very clear message” for the November election that “you’ve got to understand innovation, you’ve got to be pro-tech, pro-innovation, pro-crypto, to get elected and be representing our values in California.”

Armstrong didn’t name any California Senate candidates, instead directing voters to a guide prepared by Stand With Crypto, which, as a political 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, is not required to disclose its donors. The guide described Schiff as “strongly supportive” of crypto and Porter as “strongly against.” Garvey and Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland, the other candidates in the race, are listed as “pending,” with a question mark icon.

Advertisement

Porter’s “F” rating cited three references, including a post on X, formerly Twitter, in which she called Fairshake’s backers “shadowy crypto billionaires” because of their ad campaign against her, as well as her signature on a 2022 letter that Warren sent to the Texas power grid authority, questioning its practice of paying crypto mining businesses to shut off power during peak periods. Some companies reported earning more from the payments than from their mining operations, Warren wrote.

Stand With Crypto also said Porter voted “nay” last summer in the House finance committee markup of a cryptocurrency bill favored by the industry. But Porter isn’t a member of that committee and her name does not appear on the vote sheet. Porter did not vote on the legislation, her spokeswoman said.

Schiff’s “A” rating on crypto issues was attributed to a single statement on his campaign website that said the U.S. needs to “develop comprehensive regulatory frameworks” to ensure that cryptocurrency and blockchain companies “stay here and grow here, and that the United States remains the global leader in these important new technologies.”

Schiff told reporters during a campaign stop in San Francisco last week that he supports “clear rules of the road” and “sound regulation” for cryptocurrency companies that protect consumers but keep the firms in the U.S.

Advertisement

Business

Sony Pictures invests $100 million in virtual reality venue Cosm

Published

on

Sony Pictures invests 0 million in virtual reality venue Cosm

Sony Pictures will invest $100 million and take a minority stake in virtual reality venue operator Cosm, as the studio continues to build a business in communal experiences.

As part of the investment, Sony Pictures Chief Executive Ravi Ahuja will also join Cosm’s board of directors, the studio said Wednesday. The size of Sony’s minority stake was not disclosed.

The El Segundo-based Cosm currently operates three venues — one at Hollywood Park in Inglewood, and the others in Dallas and Atlanta. The company plans to open additional venues in Detroit and Cleveland.

Cosm bills itself as a “shared reality venue,” and its facilities center around a massive, wraparound screen that is intended to envelop viewers with additional digital effects. The company has largely focused on sports, though it has also shown Cirque du Soleil shows and done several collaborations with Warner Bros., including recent screenings of 2001’s “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” in honor of the film’s 25th anniversary.

Advertisement

“Cosm sits at the intersection of several trends shaping the future of entertainment,” Ahuja said in a statement. “We’ve followed Cosm since before launch and have been impressed with the quality of the experience and the enthusiasm it’s generating with audiences.”

The investment is Sony’s latest venture into experiential entertainment. In 2024, the Culver City-based studio acquired dine-in theater chain Alamo Drafthouse Cinema.

Continue Reading

Business

Los Angeles tries again to phase out urban oil production

Published

on

Los Angeles tries again to phase out urban oil production

The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday unanimously advanced an ordinance to halt new oil and gas drilling and phase out all existing production over the next 20 years. L.A. is home to more than 2,000 active oil wells.

The measure revives a similar ban passed in 2022, which was struck down by a judge following legal challenges from the oil and gas industry.

It must pass a second vote before final adoption later this summer, and would make L.A. the largest city in the United States to phase out existing oil wells.

“Today, Los Angeles is making a decision that aligns with our need to turn the page on urban oil drilling,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said during Tuesday’s council meeting. “The absence of an enforceable oil ordinance has had real consequences for our communities.”

Advertisement

The ban in 2022 was seen as a historic move for a region built on the petroleum industry.

But in 2024, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge invalidated the law, ruling that the state, not the city, has jurisdiction over petroleum production. The legal challenge was brought by oil companies including Warren Resources, which operates a large oil field in Wilmington. Much of the field is beneath the city of Long Beach, but it also extends under Los Angeles.

Shortly after that, state legislators advanced Assembly Bill 3233, which reaffirmed city and county authority to regulate oil and gas activity. It was largely seen as the missing piece that made the original ordinance vulnerable.

“It’s now unequivocal that cities have the authority to regulate, limit and prohibit oil and gas operations within our jurisdiction,” Yaroslavsky said.

The new ordinance, written by the Department of City Planning, prohibits new oil and gas extraction, including drilling, redrilling or deepening existing oil wells for the purposes of production. It also designates all existing and active idle wells as “nonconforming uses,” meaning they may only operate during the phaseout period and are no longer compliant with current zoning.

Advertisement

Warren Resources, which led the lawsuit against the previous ban, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company previously argued that the 2022 ban was rushed and would lead to more oil imports to the area, causing increased emissions from tankers and trucks and other environmental consequences.

Many wells in the city operate near schools, homes and parks. Most are concentrated in low-income areas and communities of color, such as Wilmington and the harbor district, West L.A. and South L.A., where residents have long reported respiratory issues, headaches, throat irritation and other health problems. Studies have found oil wells can emit carcinogens and are linked to adverse health effects.

“This ordinance is such an important step toward giving every frontline community in Los Angeles access to clean air,” Silvia Esparza, a South L.A. resident and member of environmental justice group Stand-L.A., said in a news conference ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

Ashley Hernandez, a Wilmington resident and organizer with the nonprofit Communities for a Better Environment, said bloody noses and noxious fumes were a regular part of life in the neighborhood growing up.

She noted that in addition to oil drilling, L.A. residents continue to face other environmental hazards, such as the recent oil pipeline rupture that sent crude into the L.A. River or the ongoing cold storage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights that is spewing toxic smoke.

Advertisement

“I’m here to remind L.A. city and these toxic neighbors that Wilmington residents are more important than any ‘black gold’ under their homes,” Hernandez said. “We need our city to protect our families now and to stop the oil industry’s reign of power in our city. A passage of the oil phaseout ordinance today gives the city a chance to correct this wrong.”

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Business

SpaceX stock returns to Earth after record IPO

Published

on

SpaceX stock returns to Earth after record IPO

Shares in Elon Musk’s rocket company SpaceX halted their three-day slide that had erased roughly $600 billion off its market value.

SpaceX shares closed at $156.11 with a nearly 1% gain on Tuesday, a slight recovery from a 16% fall on Monday.

That loss dropped the stock below $160.95, where it ended the day June 12 after a 19% surge during its record initial public offering. The IPO gave it a market cap of $2.2 trillion, making SpaceX one of the world’s most valuable public companies.

It also turned Musk into the world’s first trillionaire, a status he retains despite the sell-off.

The downturn probably reflects investor unease over the company’s spending plans and potential debt load, analysts say.

Advertisement

SpaceX raised a total of $86 billion after underwriters exercised their right to sell additional shares, on top of the $75 billion initially raised. It was the largest IPO in history.

A little more than half a billion shares were distributed to institutional and retail investors at a price of $135, with the stock opening at $150 as some holders immediately flipped shares for a profit.

Shares rose as high as $176.52 during the IPO before settling at the $160.95 price. In the weeks since, shares reached a high of $225.64, meaning that some investors lost money or are underwater with paper losses.

Since the IPO, SpaceX has dropped some big bucks.

It announced last week that it was acquiring AI coding startup Cursor for $60 billion in a deal expected to close in the third quarter. The San Francisco company, founded in 2022, enables engineers to instruct software in English to run coding tasks autonomously.

Advertisement

It also sold $25 billion in bonds on Tuesday , unusual for a company that just went public, much less for one that just raised a record sum.

The IPO surpassed the 2019 offering by Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil giant, which raised $29.4 billion, the prior record holder.

S&P Global issued a report last week that assigned SpaceX a “BBB” credit rating, the lowest possible rating to qualify as an investment grade credit risk. It noted the company will have “elevated capital expenditure” through 2029.

SpaceX rivals OpenAi and Anthropic filed this month for initial public offerings that, while not expected to be as large as Musk’s company, will be large in their own right.

Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, who has been bullish on SpaceX stock, said the market is digesting “massive debt and equity raises from Big Tech players” in the coming years.

Advertisement

“This is part of an industry wave of debt offerings on Wall Street, like Alphabet and SpaceX among others,” he wrote in an email.

With the stock already giving up gains since the IPO, it will be further tested when tranches of locked-up shares held by current and former employees are released.

At least 20% of the shares will be released after second-quarter results are disclosed sometime in the coming months, with all the lockups expiring in December.

SpaceX, based in Texas, is the leading launch services company in the world, with its Falcon 9 rocket accounting last year for the vast majority of satellites sent into space.

It is also the leading satellite-based broadband provider with its Starlink service. But the extraordinary interest in the IPO was driven by Musk’s plans to make the company an AI leader — including plans to launch orbiting satellite data centers powered by the sun that crunch AI data.

Advertisement

He merged his xAI artificial intelligence company into SpaceX this year, with the combined entity recently announcing it was leasing computer power to rivals Anthropic and Google at two terrestrial data centers it has constructed.

Musk moved the company’s headquarters from Hawthorne to Texas in 2024, but it retains large operations in the South Bay city and blasts off regularly from Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County.

Investment research firm Morningstar placed a $780-billion valuation on SpaceX, focusing on its core rocket and Starlink broadband satellite businesses. It suggested investors wait a few months for the stock to settle before buying in.

“I think the day-to-day stock price movements are usually based on market sentiment,” said report co-author Nicolas Owens, an equity analyst at Morningstar. “So I was not surprised when it went way up right after the IPO — and I’m not surprised it [came down]. Not much has really changed in the fundamentals.”

Mike Alves, founder of Pasadena’s Vida Vision Fund, has a stake in SpaceX that accounts for 46% of his AI and robotics fund.

Advertisement

He said he was not perturbed by the stock drop, noting that Facebook fell under $18 a share just months after its May 2012 IPO closed at $38 a share. It has since risen more than 1,000% above its offering price.

“The volatility doesn’t really matter because you’re going to multiply your best investment many times, so I’m not so worried about it,” he said, adding that investors seeking shares could now “scoop them up at a good deal.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending