Political action committees on both sides of the artificial intelligence debate spent millions of dollars trying to influence Tuesday’s midterm elections, deploying substantial capital to shape the future of AI regulation and determine how the technology will be governed at the federal and state levels. However, that heavy spending produced mixed results overall, with several of the most heavily backed candidates ultimately losing their respective races as broader political currents shaped the electoral landscape.
On the industry side, two prominent AI-focused political action committees that raised and spent funds to influence the elections—American Mission and Building the Future—collectively spent $4.8 million to back South Carolina Senate candidate Darline Graham, who ultimately lost her bid. American Mission serves as the Republican spending arm of Leading the Future (LTF), a broader political group heavily backed by OpenAI president Greg Brockman and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
American Mission also spent more than $500,000 apiece supporting Republican House candidates Aaron Flint in Montana and Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina, both of whom also lost their races. Conversely, LTF’s Democratic spending arm, Think Big, experienced better fortunes by backing Florida Representative Jared Moskowitz, who successfully won reelection.
Political groups advocating for stronger AI safeguards and stricter oversight similarly witnessed mixed outcomes at the ballot box. Public First, a group backed by AI firm Anthropic, supported several Republican candidates who ultimately lost through its affiliated PAC, though it achieved more success when backing Democratic contenders. Furthermore, Public First contributed $3 million to a political action committee supporting California state Senator Scott Wiener, who was leading his race at the time of publication.
Meanwhile, the Guardrails Alliance, an organization that has actively sought to make accepting campaign contributions from AI companies a severe political liability, spent more than $1 million apiece opposing two candidates who ultimately lost: California Representative Jimmy Gomez and Montana’s Aaron Flint. The group also spent $300,000 supporting Angela Gonzales-Torres, who successfully defeated Gomez.
Analyzing the exact electoral impact of AI-related spending remains challenging, particularly when weighed against the broader Democratic wave that swept through Tuesday’s elections. Technology billionaire Elon Musk, who reportedly poured half a billion dollars into supporting Republican candidates during the midterms, also saw many of his endorsed candidates lose their races. Indeed, Leading the Future also backed several candidates it believed were likely to win, only to watch them fall short against Democratic opponents.
For Leading the Future, however, the general election was never the primary focus of its broader electoral strategy. The group indicated ahead of Election Day that it views primary elections—the critical contests that choose each political party’s nominee—as a far more effective use of its financial resources. According to the organization, spending during primaries allows campaigns to build essential name recognition early on and helps candidates establish concrete AI policy agendas before facing a general electorate.
Leading the Future previously poured $27.38 million into primary races alone, which included an eye-opening $8 million spent exclusively on opposing New York Assembly member Alex Bores, who ultimately lost his bid for Congress back in June. When deciding whether it is worth jumping into a competitive general election race, LTF assesses how tight the contest is, whether it believes its financial intervention could realistically make a difference, and whether it should keep its powder dry for future election cycles.
Charlie Blaettler, the political director of the Guardrails Alliance, offered a distinctly different perspective on why LTF and other industry-aligned groups spent comparatively modest amounts during the general election phase.
"They don’t want their money to become an issue in these elections," Blaettler said. He pointed to the Michigan Senate primary election as a cautionary tale, during which a pro-Israel lobbying group called AIPAC spent close to $30 million backing Democratic candidate Haley Stevens against Abdul El-Sayed. Stevens ultimately conceded that primary to El-Sayed, who went on to secure the Senate seat.
"AIPAC became the story in that race," Blaettler noted. "We know people hate AI billionaires. They hate the people running these companies. They’re very distrustful and disgusted by the political spending and lobbying that the tech industry does. If they spend in a competitive race, they would just become an enormous liability for their candidates."
At the heart of the intense legislative and political fighting between these competing political action committees—whether they lean pro-industry or pro-regulation—is a fundamental disagreement over congressional oversight. Specifically, the debate centers on whether Congress should establish a comprehensive national AI framework that overrides patchwork state laws, or whether individual states should maintain their own authority to impose local safeguards and restrictions.
Neither side appears poised to back down following the midterm results. Leading the Future, which strongly favors a single national AI framework, confirmed that it plans to continue its heavy spending in the upcoming 2028 elections. Meanwhile, the Guardrails Alliance stated that it remains fully committed to opposing candidates who accept financial backing from the AI industry.
Blaettler noted that while Leading the Future’s campaign advertisements rarely touch upon artificial intelligence directly—instead focusing on popular, localized issues for each candidate—Guardrails Alliance advertisements are explicitly designed to highlight who is accepting money from the tech sector.
"Our goal is to make AI money politically toxic," Blaettler said.
Comments (0)