Trump’s Crypto Corruption Puts Centrist Democrats in Bind 58%

By Matt Sledge63%

7/23/2026, 6:56:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Hasty Generalization, and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 17.3% saturation with 144 hits. Analysis detected 580 faulty-reasoning hits from 834 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55% and a BS Rank of 58% (8,903 of 21,172 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.00% of the article peer group.

The latest version of a sweeping crypto bill exposed a deep divide between progressives and moderate Senate Democrats: whether to accommodate the industry ahead of the fall midterms, or declare open war on it. 
Seven Democrats issued a statement Wednesday night lamenting that they cannot vote for the latest draft of the bill, citing weak provisions aimed at tamping down Donald Trump’s crypto self-enrichment, among other issues. 
In a joint statement, they pledged to keep working with Republicans to “get this over the finish line.” 
Other Democrats say they have had enough of crypto, however. 
The problems with the bill run much deeper than Trump’s corruption, Sen. 
Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said at a Wednesday speech, and it is time for Democrats to openly break with the industry and its $189 million in campaign funds . 
“This bill is in front of the Senate because the industry paid for it,” Murphy said. 
“We should, in this election, make crypto’s purchase of our political process, AI’s purchase of our political process, a major campaign issue.” 
“This bill is in front of the Senate because the industry paid for it.” 
The two sides staked out their position as Republicans released a draft text of the far-reaching bill known as the Clarity Act, which would create an industry-friendly regulatory structure for cryptocurrencies. 
Critics say there are many problems with the bill, including lax consumer protections and loopholes that would enable money laundering. 
Nothing in the monthslong fight over the legislation has generated as much controversy as Trump’s self-dealing, however. 
Between the $TRUMP meme coin and other ventures , Trump profited at least $1.4 billion off crypto last year. 
Democrats have proposed requiring Trump to divest himself of his crypto ventures and put enforcement in the hands of Democratic state attorneys general. 
Instead, Republicans issued a proposal, with Trump’s blessing, that would prevent him from issuing new meme coins and put enforcement in the hands of his own Department of Justice and would not be enforceable after he leaves office. 
Sen. 
Kirsten Gillibrand Wants to Save Crypto  But Trump Windfall Is a Political Obstacle 
No matter what’s in the legislation, the bill is meaningless if it leaves enforcement to Trump’s own administration, said Mark Hays, the associate director for cryptocurrency and financial technology at Americans for Financial Reform and Demand Progress. 
“I don’t think anybody who is following the DOJ seriously thinks they will do that,” he said. 
“That is just not how this administration works.” 
Even Sen. 
Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who has often sided with crypto in the past , said he opposes the language in the bill addressing Trump. 
Schiff told reporters at the Capitol that that text gives the appearance it applies to Trump and his family without actually doing so. 
“It’s a complete nonstarter,” he said. 
The bill’s flaws led the seven mostly centrist Democrats to issue a statement hours after the release of the draft text saying that they could not vote for it in its current form. 
“Key provisions including those addressing ethics for elected officials, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity must be strengthened. 
We have been working in good faith with our Republican colleagues for the past year and will continue doing so to get this over the finish line,” said the group, which included Sen. 
Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., one of the top negotiators on the bill. 
The time for Democrats and Republicans to reach a compromise is slipping fast, however. 
The Senate goes into recess on August 7, and few observers expect Congress to take the measure up again as the midterms approach. 
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said that he hopes to put the measure to a vote before senators leave town. 
Who’s Spending in Your Congressional Election? 
We Tracked the Front Groups Fueling the 2026 Midterms. 
Democrats are nervously eying the industry’s war chest if they are put on the record as opposing the Clarity Act. 
Companies including Coinbase, the largest publicly traded crypto company, have contributed $189 million into super PACs and candidate campaign funds to influence the midterms. 
In the past, some of the spending has benefited Democrats such as Sen. 
Ruben Gallego , D-Ariz. 
Yet it may have also contributed to Democrats losing the Senate in 2024. 
Murphy, in the Wednesday speech at the Center for American Progress, said it would be better to attack the industry than try to work with it. 
“They are spending money in order to get a pro-crypto bill passed through the United States Senate and House of Representatives,” Murphy said. 
“And there are, I guess, two approaches that the Democratic Party could take. 
One approach is to just do what the crypto industry wants and then cross our fingers and hope they don’t spend money against us in the next election. 
Good luck with that strategy. 
The second approach is to make the industry’s brazen attempts to buy our political process a campaign issue.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 2.8%The Intercept: 5.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 2.4%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Matt Sledge: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias6.5%This article: 17.3%Matt Sledge: 11.2%The Intercept: 9.3%Framing Effect17.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.5%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Matt Sledge: 11.8%The Intercept: 12.4%Negativity Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.6%The Intercept: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.4%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.8%The Intercept: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.0%The Intercept: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Matt Sledge: 2.7%The Intercept: 2.4%Ad Hominem6.4%This article: 3.4%Matt Sledge: 0.9%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man3.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 2.9%The Intercept: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.6%Matt Sledge: 2.0%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.5%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.3%Matt Sledge: 5.8%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization7.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.5%Matt Sledge: 6.3%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion11.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.6%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 1.6%Matt Sledge: 2.6%The Intercept: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.1%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 2.6%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 2.0%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.1%Matt Sledge: 8.3%The Intercept: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice7.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.4%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 1.0%Matt Sledge: 4.8%The Intercept: 6.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

834 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers40%attributed speech501writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageChris Murphy • 28 words • 0.0% coverageChris Murphy • 16 words • 0.0% coverageChris Murphy • 22 words • 0.0% coverageChris Murphy • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMark Hays • 37 words • 0.0% coverageMark Hays • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMark Hays • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Schiff • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Schiff • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Schiff • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Thune • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRuben Gallego • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageChris Murphy • 26 words • 0.0% coverageChris Murphy • 23 words • 0.0% coverageChris Murphy • 13 words • 0.0% coverageChris Murphy • 28 words • 0.0% coverageChris Murphy • 5 words • 0.0% coverageChris Murphy • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chris Murphy

69%flagged-word coverage
193 attributed words58% of attributed speech27% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%Chris Murphy: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Chris Murphy: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.