AI-backed super PACs have already spent $21.3 million battling over a single New York congressional seat — and that's just the beginning. With the two largest AI super PACs in the country having raised a combined $205 million heading into the 2024 midterms, the question of how much AI money is flooding U.S. elections has a jaw-dropping answer: more than anyone expected, and it's only halfway through the primary season.
The race at the center of this spending storm? A Democratic primary in New York's wealthiest congressional district, where the fight over federal AI regulation played out in real time — on television screens, in mailboxes, and across social media feeds.
How Much Did AI Super PACs Spend on Congress Races?
The numbers are staggering. Two competing AI-backed super PACs — Leading the Future and Public First Action — spent a combined $21.3 million focused heavily on one candidate in a single New York primary. But that's just a slice of the total picture.
- Leading the Future has spent more than $24 million on midterm elections so far, including races in California and Illinois, and has raised $125 million total.
- Public First Action has spent over $20 million on midterm elections nationwide and has raised $80 million from donors.
- Three additional AI-backed PACs also jumped into the New York primary alone, spending an additional $5.9 million.
And remember: this is only the halfway point of the primary season. As one observer put it, "There are trillions of dollars at stake, and so there are a few people who want to make sure that they control the regulations." The cash spigot is nowhere near turning off before November.
Is This a Proxy War Between OpenAI and Anthropic?
Some have called it exactly that — a proxy war between two of Silicon Valley's biggest AI rivals. But both companies are scrambling to distance themselves from that label.
Leading the Future, which opposes aggressive state-level AI regulation, counts OpenAI president Greg Brockman among its top funders, alongside Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, Marc Andreessen, and Ben Horowitz. The PAC spent over $8 million running attack ads against New York Assemblyman Alex Bores.
Public First Action, meanwhile, received a reported $20 million donation from Anthropic — and jumped into the race specifically to counter Leading the Future's attacks on Bores. As a spokesperson for Public First Action put it bluntly: "We exist really to stymie another super PAC."
Yet both companies are trying to wash their hands of the political brawl. Anthropic claimed its $20 million donation was strictly for AI policy education, not political activity. And OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, when asked about the company's midterm spending, told reporters: "I don't think we've been involved in a massive lobbying campaign. Maybe you know something I don't."
Whether you call it a proxy war or not, the result is the same: two competing visions of AI's future, each backed by enormous tech money, fighting for control of Congress.
What Is the RAISE Act and Why Does It Matter?
At the heart of this spending battle is a piece of state legislation called the RAISE Act — described as one of the first state-level bills designed to regulate artificial intelligence, and reportedly the strongest AI safety bill passed anywhere in the country.
Alex Bores, the New York State Assemblyman at the center of the congressional race, was the driving force behind it. The bill passed over the objections of virtually the entire AI industry, and it made Bores an immediate target.
Critics, including Leading the Future, argued the RAISE Act risked creating conflicting state and federal requirements that could slow AI development and crush innovation. Their attack ads warned it would "hand AI to state regulators and create a chaotic patchwork of state rules that would cost New York jobs."
Supporters countered that some regulation is necessary — and that you can invest in beneficial AI, like tools that help doctors diagnose disease, without enabling harmful AI, like systems that help insurance companies deny claims.
Who Is Funding the Leading the Future Super PAC?
Leading the Future is not a grassroots operation. Its donor list reads like a who's-who of Silicon Valley's most influential figures:
- Greg Brockman — President of OpenAI
- Joe Lonsdale — Co-founder of Palantir
- Marc Andreessen — Venture capital legend at a16z
- Ben Horowitz — Co-founder of Andreessen Horowitz
The PAC's stated mission is to support a broad, national, consistent framework for AI regulation — one standard across all 50 states, rather than a patchwork of state laws. Their argument: regulatory fragmentation, not regulation itself, is the real enemy of innovation.
"The best policy for the country would be one that is consistent across all 50 states," a Leading the Future spokesperson said. "Regulation is not going to be the reason we win or lose this race versus China."
Why Don't Democrats Agree on AI Policy?
If you're looking for a unified Democratic position on AI, you won't find one — and that itself is a major story heading into November.
On one end of the spectrum, figures like Senator Bernie Sanders, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Representative Frank Pallone — the top Democrat on one of the main committees overseeing AI — have floated the idea of banning the construction of new data centers entirely.
On the other end, lawmakers like Josh Gottheimer, Ted Lieu, and Valerie Foushee — co-chairs of an AI commission — are open to working collaboratively with AI companies while still seeking guardrails on the industry.
Polling shows the public is similarly divided. According to recent surveys, half of Americans say they are more concerned than excited about the use of AI in daily life. Concerns range from rising utility costs and job displacement to environmental impact and questions about the technology's safety.
The debate is not neatly partisan either. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are wrestling with how to address AI, making it one of the rare policy areas where traditional party lines don't offer a clean map.
National AI Standard vs. State Laws: What's the Debate?
One of the biggest fault lines in AI policy right now is geographic: should regulation happen at the state level, or should there be a single national standard?
States aren't waiting for Congress to act. Several have already passed or are advancing their own AI legislation. But tech companies argue this creates a nightmare scenario — a company potentially having to comply with 50 different sets of rules, stifling the speed and scale of AI development.
Proponents of state-level action counter that waiting for federal consensus means leaving people unprotected during a critical window of AI adoption. As one policy expert noted: "It is so important that we do this now and urgently, because it is still the early innings of the technology, but it is being adopted quickly at scale."
Congress has yet to coalesce around what a single national standard would actually look like — leaving a vacuum that both state legislatures and deep-pocketed super PACs are rushing to fill.
What Happened in New York's Most Expensive AI Primary?
After all the ads, all the spending, and all the national attention — Alex Bores lost.
The winner was Michael Asher, who is expected to win the general election in November and be sworn into Congress in January. Asher did not make AI the centerpiece of his campaign the way Bores did, but he made his position crystal clear in his victory statement:
"I have some news for the two big AI companies who've taken such an unusual interest in who won this congressional seat. I won't be taking my cues from either of you when it comes to protecting our kids, our jobs, and our environment."
It's a message that will likely echo through the Capitol hallways once he arrives. The next class of lawmakers — shaped in part by AI money — will be the ones writing AI law. And what they decide will have lasting consequences for the economy, national security, the environment, and the future of the technology itself.
As one voice in the debate framed it: "If we're going to see a shift in economy like never before, the question is — how are we evolving policy with it?" That question now belongs to the voters, and to whoever they send to Washington in November.
