Key Takeaways
- AI‑aligned super PACs spent $55.7 million in the 2026 election cycle, almost all of it in primary races for “safe” seats.
- The majority of the money went to Democratic candidates, yet the groups deliberately avoided mentioning AI or data centers in their TV and digital ads.
- OpenAI‑backed Leading the Future favors lighter regulation, while Anthropic‑backed Public First Action pushes for stricter safeguards, but both seek to install policymakers sympathetic to AI growth.
- The strategy mirrors that of pro‑Israel groups like AIPAC: heavy spending in low‑visibility races, use of pass‑through entities, and a growing opacity that makes tracking influence difficult.
- Early signs suggest the AI lobby may shift tactics as public backlash intensifies, moving money through larger party PACs or newer, obscure shells.
Overview of AI Election Spending
A New York Times analysis of federal campaign‑finance records shows that the political groups tied to the two leading AI developers—OpenAI and Anthropic—have poured $55.7 million into the 2026 races. The Times reviewed 95 distinct ads bought by four AI‑aligned super PACs, finding that the bulk of the outlay went to primary contests in districts that are unlikely to flip party control but often feature fierce intraparty battles. As the report notes, “The two groups have spent $52.6 million on safe seats — those that are unlikely to change party hands but that often feature intense intraparty contests.” This concentration reflects a calculated effort to shape the next Congress before general‑election noise drowns out targeted messaging.
Partisan Tilt and Stealth Tactics
Although the funds flow to both parties, the data reveal a clear Democratic tilt: “They have spent more heavily for Democrats than Republicans.” The super PACs have used their money to bolster candidates who echo the AI industry’s policy preferences, to defeat perceived opponents, and to ingratiate themselves with front‑runners likely to wield influence over AI legislation. Crucially, the groups have concealed their involvement. “With few exceptions, they have intervened without ever explicitly mentioning AI or data centers in the TV and digital ads they have purchased.” This stealth approach allows them to shape outcomes while avoiding the growing voter backlash against AI expansion and data‑center proliferation.
Ads That Avoid the AI Label
The Times’ ad review uncovered multiple instances where AI‑aligned messaging was wrapped in wholly unrelated themes. An advertisement for Rep. Barry Moore (R‑Ala.) showed him shaking hands with firefighters in a garage, overlaid with the slogan “CHAMPION AMERICAN INNOVATION.” Similar phrasing appeared in several other spots that depicted workplaces having nothing to do with AI. In Illinois, a Think Big ad supporting former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. praised his commitment to “reducing gun violence and supporting law enforcement,” again without referencing AI. Even when the same AI donor funded both sides of an issue, the spots remained issue‑neutral: “two spots for House candidates in Texas, a Democrat and a Republican, praise opposite positions on immigration. Both are funded by the Anthropic‑aligned super PACs.” These examples illustrate how the lobby masks its true motive behind broad, patriotic or safety‑focused narratives.
Critics Call the Approach Cynical
State Senator Nate Blouin of Utah, who lost a Democratic primary after facing over $1 million in AI‑backed ads, condemned the tactic as cynical. He told the Times, “They’re coming into races in safe seats that they know that they’re going to be decided in the primaries, and they are spending millions of dollars on things that are unrelated to the core issue that they are pushing for.” Blouin’s lament echoes a broader comparison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), another major interest group that has recently obscured its primary agenda while spending tens of millions in midterms. Both entities use heavy spending in low‑visibility contests to shape future policymakers without letting the public see the direct link between money and policy.
Divergent AI Agendas, Shared Objective
Despite their common spending patterns, the two AI giants harbor differing policy preferences. Anthropic generally backs stricter regulation of AI development, whereas OpenAI tends to advocate fewer guardrails to accelerate innovation. Yet both share the same end goal: “promoting AI and electing policymakers who hold a favorable view of it.” In statements to the Times, the spokespersons for each side emphasized their distinct missions. Anthony Rivera‑Rodriguez of Public First Action denounced any suggestion of alignment with OpenAI’s Leading the Future, asserting, “We reject any suggestion that we have anything in common with Leading the Future, a group that exists to gut every serious attempt to regulate artificial intelligence.” He described his group as “the counterweight to Big Tech’s political machine.” Conversely, Jesse Hunt of Leading the Future said the organization is “focused on building a bench of champions who understand the need for a national AI framework that keeps America at the forefront of innovation while putting responsible safeguards in place.” The contradictory rhetoric underscores a strategic convergence: influence the legislative landscape, regardless of the precise regulatory shape that emerges.
North Carolina: Buying a Narrow Victory
One of the most conspicuous demonstrations of AI money’s impact occurred in North Carolina’s Democratic primary for the Research Triangle district. Incumbent Rep. Valerie Foushee faced a progressive challenger, Nida Allam, who had previously run against her. Two days before Allam relaunched her campaign, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries named Foushee co‑chair of the party’s new Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy—a signal that elevated her stature among AI‑friendly legislators. Shortly thereafter, the Anthropic‑aligned Jobs and Democracy PAC poured $1.6 million into Foushee’s campaign. She prevailed by less than one percentage point. Allam later remarked, “These committees and task forces — they’re basically a flag or indicator to the lobbyist industry that these are people who will have decision‑making power over your industry and so you need to go spend money on their campaigns.” Foushee, for her part, insisted the funds did not buy favorable treatment, stating her work “has centered on establishing guardrails, holding corporations accountable and protecting our children, communities and jobs.”
Washington State: Backing a Pro‑AI Republican
In Washington’s open‑seat GOP primary to replace retiring Rep. Dan Newhouse, the OpenAI‑aligned American Mission PAC threw its weight behind Amanda McKinney, a Yakima County commissioner who had secured Donald Trump’s endorsement. Her campaign website declared, “She believes the United States must lead in artificial intelligence and advanced technologies, not surrender leadership to China or other adversaries,” and warned against “heavy‑handed regulation that stifles innovation or drives jobs overseas.” American Mission spent roughly $780,000 on her behalf, helping her capture 35 % of the primary vote and advance to the general election. The expenditure illustrates how AI donors are willing to back Republicans who frame AI as a national‑competitiveness issue, even in districts where the party’s base might otherwise be skeptical of tech expansion.
Targeting AI Skeptics
Conversely, the AI PACs moved to undercut candidates who had positioned themselves as critics of unchecked AI growth. In Utah, state senator Nate Blouin—a self‑described “leading skeptic of the push for unchecked growth of data centers”—faced a primary challenge from former Rep. Ben McAdams. Although Blouin’s past social‑media posts had already damaged his candidacy, Think Big (the OpenAI‑aligned Democratic super PAC) poured about $1.1 million into television, digital ads, and text blasts supporting McAdams. McAdams, who never mentioned AI on his website, had written an op‑ed urging schools to treat AI fluency as basic literacy and opposed a proposed 40,000‑acre AI data‑center campus in the district. In a June debate, he asserted, “every member of Congress needs to be proactive in providing oversight of AI in order to protect jobs, our kids, the environment and the fabric of our communities.” He added that “federal guardrails” were needed to ensure transparency and civil‑rights protections. Blouin, meanwhile, warned that unchecked AI could “destroy our kids,” underscoring the stark philosophical divide the spending sought to tilt.
Illinois: Dueling AI PACs on the Same Race
The Illinois primary to succeed Rep. Jerrold Nadler offered a striking case of both AI factions spending on opposite sides of the same contest. When Assembly member Alex Bores introduced legislation to regulate advanced AI models, Think Big (OpenAI‑aligned) launched attack ads against him, while Jobs and Democracy (Anthropic‑aligned) rushed to his defense. The Times described the scene as a “multimillion‑dollar influx from rival AI interests.” Bores ultimately lost narrowly, demonstrating how the AI lobby can simultaneously fund pro‑ and anti‑regulation messages to ensure that whichever candidate emerges, the donor’s influence remains embedded in the ensuing legislative conversation.
Boosting Established Front‑Runners
Beyond contested primaries, the AI groups lavished money on candidates already seen as inevitable winners. Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, widely expected to capture the Senate seat vacated by Markwayne Mullin, received nearly $1.3 million from American Mission and the Anthropic‑aligned Defending Our Values PAC before his June victory. Defending Our Values also backed Carlos De La Cruz, brother of Rep. Monica De La Cruz of Texas, who secured a speaking slot at the midterm convention in Dallas and is favored to win his district. In South Carolina, American Mission spent about $375,000 on Senator Lindsey Graham’s primary (which was non‑competitive) and, after his death, redirected nearly $1.2 million to support his sister, Darline, in both primary and general contests. These expenditures reveal a pattern: lock in allies who are already poised for power, thereby minimizing risk while maximizing future legislative access.
General‑Election Restraint and Future Shifts
With roughly a month left before the 2026 midterms, the AI‑aligned PACs have largely stayed out of general‑election contests, preferring to concentrate their firepower in primaries. American Mission has allocated about $500,000 each to three Republican Senate candidates in less competitive races (Julia Letlow of Louisiana, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Cindy Hyde‑Smith of Mississippi). Think Big has directed nearly $300,000 to three House Democrats (Greg Stanton of Arizona, Emilia Sykes of Ohio, and Steven Horsford of Nevada) plus a modest $50 k for Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York. Political operatives anticipate a shift as anti‑AI sentiment intensifies. Usamah Andrabi, communications director for Justice Democrats, warned that the AI lobby’s money trails are becoming as opaque as those of AIPAC: “There was a time where I could tell you every Israel lobby super PAC, and I cannot tell you that anymore because there’s so many pop‑up PACs, there’s so many shell PACs, there’s so many pass‑throughs.” He expects the AI donors to move funds through larger party PACs or create newer, obscure shells to evade scrutiny—mirroring the tactics that have long plagued other influence industries.
Outlook
The Times investigation makes clear that AI’s biggest players are treating electoral influence as a core business strategy: spending tens of millions to shape the composition of Congress while avoiding overt discussion of the very technology they seek to promote. Their bipartisan but Democratic‑leaning outlay, the deliberate omission of AI from advertisements, and the parallel funding of opposing candidates on the same issues all point to a sophisticated effort to secure favorable policymakers regardless of the eventual regulatory shape. As public concern over AI safety, data‑center expansion, and job displacement grows, the lobby may be forced to adapt its stealth tactics, but for now, the money flow shows that the AI industry is betting heavily on the primaries of 2026 to set the stage for the next wave of federal AI policy.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/artificial-intelligence-companies-midterm-spending-20261002.html