AI companies are flooding tens of millions of dollars into midterm elections to influence who writes the rules governing their industry, marking a dramatic shift in how the tech sector wields political power. Groups tied to OpenAI and Anthropic have collectively spent $43.3 million on congressional races this election cycle, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit that tracks campaign spending. This spending surge reveals a fundamental tension: while there is bipartisan agreement that Congress needs stronger AI regulation, the industry itself is now actively shaping which lawmakers will be at the table when those rules are written.

Why Are AI Companies Spending So Much on Elections?

The answer lies in competing visions of how AI should be governed. OpenAI and Anthropic, which are rivals in the race to build the most powerful artificial intelligence systems, have fundamentally different philosophies about regulation. These differences are now playing out in real-time through political spending, with each company backing super PACs (independent political committees that can raise unlimited funds) to support or oppose candidates based on their stance on AI regulation.

The most visible battleground is a congressional primary race in New York City's 12th District, which spans Manhattan from 14th Street to the top of Central Park. The district has the highest per-capita income in the country, making it a symbolic battleground for tech policy. Alex Bores, a New York state assemblyman and former Palantir employee, entered the Democratic primary to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler after co-sponsoring the state's Responsible AI Safety and Education Act, legislation that requires AI companies to report safety incidents and publish information on their safeguards.

After Bores entered the race, the political spending exploded. Groups linked to OpenAI and Anthropic have collectively spent more than $15 million on pro- and anti-Bores messaging, according to Federal Election Commission filings. This spending has made the race a proxy war over federal AI regulation, with the outcome potentially influencing how Congress approaches the issue.

How Are the Two AI Giants Taking Opposite Sides?

On one side is Leading the Future, a super PAC mainly funded by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (an OpenAI investor) and OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Brockman. The group has raised more than $75 million and has already spent $23.5 million on dozens of races across Texas, Georgia, Illinois, and Montana. Leading the Future's stated mission is to "oppose policies that stifle innovation, enable China to gain global AI superiority, or make it harder to bring AI's benefits into the world." The group argues for a national approach to setting AI standards, rather than a patchwork of state-by-state rules.

On the other side is Public First, positioned in direct opposition to Leading the Future. In February, Anthropic announced it was contributing $20 million to Public First Action, a related nonprofit that "opposes federal efforts to freeze state progress without adequate federal safeguards". Anthropic said the company did not want to "sit on the sidelines" while AI policies are developed. Public First-affiliated PACs, including Jobs and Democracy and Defending Our Values, have spent $16.6 million so far on congressional races in states including North Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

In February, Anthropic

The ideological divide mirrors the corporate competition between the two companies. OpenAI favors a centralized, national regulatory framework that it believes will prevent a chaotic patchwork of state rules. Anthropic, by contrast, supports stronger state-level safeguards and opposes federal efforts that would preempt state innovation in AI safety.

Steps to Understanding the Stakes in AI Regulation

• National vs. State Regulation: OpenAI-backed groups argue that a single federal standard prevents companies from navigating conflicting state rules, while Anthropic-backed groups contend that state-level oversight allows for more rigorous safety testing before federal rules are finalized.
• Innovation vs. Safety: Leading the Future frames strict regulation as innovation-killing, while Public First frames it as necessary to prevent harm and ensure responsible AI development.
• Corporate Competition as Political Strategy: The two companies are using campaign spending not just to win individual races, but to shape the broader political landscape in which AI regulation will be debated and written.

Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a bipartisan nonprofit that seeks to reduce the influence of money in politics, explained the broader implications. "This type of spending really helps shape who is at the table and what perspectives they are bringing into those conversations when new legislation is crafted," he said. "It's rewriting the playbook for how industries are trying to exert their influence in Washington and in states across the country."

The AI industry's spending is not limited to OpenAI and Anthropic. Facebook owner Meta is funding super PACs aimed at shaping AI policy in Texas and California, while both Google and Meta are backing another super PAC focused on California state legislative races. Billionaire crypto investor Chris Larsen, who has spent millions on local and state races in California this year, launched a super PAC called You Can Push Back that has spent nearly $2 million backing Bores in New York.

Katie Harbath, founder of the tech consulting firm Anchor Change and a former Facebook public policy executive, noted that this level of political involvement represents a significant shift in how the tech industry operates. "Silicon Valley has long injected money into politics, but in previous cycles that came primarily through individual donations from executives and via corporate PACs," she explained. "The AI-connected groups' more aggressive political involvement is a real experiment this time to see if that sort of money can really sway any of these races in the way that these companies want it to."

The June 23 primary in New York's 12th District will serve as an early test of whether this spending strategy actually influences electoral outcomes. The torrent of ads, mailers, and texts appears to have primarily served to raise Bores' profile in a crowded field, but the ultimate winner will signal whether voters prioritize AI safety or innovation concerns.

What makes this moment significant is that it reveals a fundamental challenge in AI governance: the companies being regulated are now actively shaping the political process that will determine how they are regulated. While there is broad agreement that Congress needs to act on AI policy, the industry's willingness to spend tens of millions of dollars to influence which lawmakers will write those rules raises questions about whose interests will ultimately be represented in the final legislation.

" }