As part of its coverage of the 2024 US Elections, Cointelegraph asked several congressional candidates for their positions on cryptocurrency and blockchain.

As part of its coverage of the 2024 US Elections, Cointelegraph asked several congressional candidates for their positions on cryptocurrency and blockchain. 

Kari Lake is running to represent the state of Arizona in the United States Senate. A far-right Republican who refused to concede her loss in the state’s 2022 gubernatorial election, Lake will face off against Democrat Ruben Gallego in November.

In August, Lake updated her campaign platform to include “building a robust but open framework to protect the cryptocurrency economy.”

She claimed to be a “pro-crypto candidate” on X, supporting some of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s statements advocating for Bitcoin BTC  $67,788 “as a last line of defense against our foreign adversaries.”

However, the crypto-backed political action committee (PAC) Protect Progress, an affiliate of Fairshake, has spent more than $10 million since August to support Gallego’s bid for the Senate rather than Lake’s.

As a Representative of Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District, Gallego voted in favor of the FIT21 Act and a resolution to overturn the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121.

Control of the US Senate could shift to Republicans starting in 2025, depending on the outcome of races like Lake’s and Gallego’s. The government body has the authority to confirm presidential nominations to regulators like the SEC and pass bills sent over from the House of Representatives.

The Arizona candidate answered 10 questions about her views on digital assets and blockchain technology sent by Cointelegraph via email.

Name: Kari Lake

Party: Republican

Running: US Senate, Arizona

Cointelegraph: What is your stance on stablecoins? Should they be regulated like traditional financial instruments, and if so, how?

Kari Lake: As with other areas of crypto, a minimal regulatory structure that ensures space for continued growth, experimentation, and economic creativity is likely the best alternative.

Given the transparency created by blockchain, the push to regulate stablecoins as banks is excessive and unnecessary. For the long-term growth of the industry, however, a reasonable framework of regulation could represent an opportunity to expand the potential investor field.

My goal would be to work with stablecoin investors and developers to produce a framework that meets their needs.

CT: Do you support the development of a CBDC (digital dollar) in the US? Why or why not?

KL: No. Non-centralized digital currency is a critical defense against the increasing centralization of power by governments that are currently demonstrating a significant totalitarian bent.

CT: Stablecoins have been pitched as a way to potentially extend US-dollar dominance by decades. Do you agree with this plan? Why or why not?

KL: Yes and, more broadly, I believe that ensuring the US remains at the forefront of crypto markets — and protects the freedom of those markets — is a major hedge against dollar devaluation by BRICs and the abandonment of USD as the global reserve.

CT: What role do you think Congress should play in regulating DeFi, and what specific risks or benefits do you see?

KL: A very limited one, ensuring the fair exchange of accruals under DeFi contracts.

CT: What role do you believe the SEC and/or CFTC should play in overseeing the cryptocurrency industry?

KL: Primarily one engaged in preventing fraud, with VERY limited authority in other areas.

CT: Some traditional banks are beginning to integrate cryptocurrency services. Do you support this trend, and how should Congress approach the regulation of banks that engage in crypto activities?

KL: Yes, banks should have the ability and interest to offer their customers cryptocurrency services. Congress should be careful not to extend too much regulation into the process, especially at the beginning, and simply set conservative asset/risk ratios for bank-held crypto assets in liquidity calculations.

CT: Do you personally own any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, and how does that influence your stance on these issues?

KL: A small amount, yes. It makes me open to hearing from crypto supporters and critics alike as I evaluate the future of both my investments and the market as a whole.

CT: Looking ahead, where do you see the future of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies in the US over the next 10 years? What role will Congress play in shaping that future?

KL: Congress would be best served by playing a limited role guided by industry experts, as crypto and blockchain technologies have the potential to transform the global economic landscape and eliminate some of the last residual barriers to free and fair trade.

CT: What is your position on the self-custody of digital assets?

KL: People should be allowed to personally hold any asset they want themselves, in a manner of their choosing, barring fraudulent activity.

CT: What role do you think a candidate’s view on digital assets should have among voters in an election year?

KL: Digital assets are an essential and rapidly growing industry creating new wealth; candidates who refuse to support the continued development, growth, and maturation of digital assets and related industries is [sic] doing a disservice to the nation.