AI-Backed Political Groups Split Results in Midterm Races

Political groups on both sides of the AI debate spent millions of dollars trying to influence Tuesday’s midterm elections and shape the future of AI regulation. The results were mixed, and some of the most heavily backed candidates lost.

Did AI-backed political groups win their midterm races?

On the industry side, two AI-focused political action committees, American Mission and Building the Future, collectively spent $4.8 million to back South Carolina Senate candidate Darline Graham. She lost. American Mission is the Republican spending arm of Leading the Future (LTF), a broader political group 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 lost. LTF’s Democratic spending arm, Think Big, had better luck. It backed Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz, who won reelection.

Groups pushing for stronger AI safeguards did no better across the board. Public First, which is backed by Anthropic, supported several Republicans through its affiliated PAC, and those candidates lost. The group had more success with Democratic candidates. It also contributed $3 million to a PAC supporting California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who was leading his race when the reporting was published.

Guardrails Alliance, a group that has tried to make taking money from AI companies a political liability, spent more than $1 million apiece opposing two candidates who lost: California Rep. Jimmy Gomez and Montana’s Aaron Flint. It also spent $300,000 supporting Angela Gonzales-Torres, who defeated Gomez.

It is hard to separate the effect of AI-related spending from the broader Democratic wave that swept Tuesday’s races. Elon Musk, who reportedly poured half a billion dollars into supporting Republicans in the midterms, also saw many of his candidates lose. LTF backed some candidates it considered likely winners, and those candidates lost too.

Why did LTF spend less on general election races?

For LTF, the general election was not the main event. The group told TechCrunch before Election Day that primaries, the contests that pick each party’s nominee, are a better use of its money. Spending there, the group said, can build name recognition and help candidates develop AI policy agendas.

LTF spent $27.38 million in the primaries. That included $8 million on a single target: New York Assembly member Alex Bores, who lost his bid for Congress in June. When deciding whether to enter a general election race, LTF weighs how competitive the race is, whether its spending could change the outcome, and whether it should hold resources for future elections.

Charlie Blaettler, political director of Guardrails Alliance, offered a different explanation for why LTF spent comparatively little in the general election. “They don’t want their money to become an issue in these elections,” he said.

He pointed to the Michigan Senate primary, where the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC spent close to $30 million backing Democratic candidate Haley Stevens against Abdul El-Sayed. Stevens conceded the primary to El-Sayed, who went on to win the Senate seat.

“AIPAC became the story in that race,” Blaettler said. “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.”

What is the core fight over AI regulation in politics?

The core fight among AI-related PACs, whether pro-industry or pro-regulation, centers on one question. Should Congress establish a national AI framework that overrides state laws, or should states keep their power to impose their own safeguards?

Neither side appears ready to back off. LTF, which favors a single national framework, told TechCrunch it plans to keep spending in the 2028 elections. Guardrails Alliance says it intends to keep opposing candidates backed by the AI industry.

Blaettler said LTF’s ads rarely mention AI and instead focus on issues popular with each candidate’s voters. Guardrails Alliance’s ads, by contrast, are specifically about who is taking money from the AI industry. “Our goal is to make AI money politically toxic,” he said.

This article was written with the assistance of AI.
News Factory APP - agentic news to boost your SEO & AEO.