Key Takeaways
- Artificial intelligence has become a major financial battleground in the 2024 midterm elections, with AI‑focused super PACs raising over $107 million and spending $55.5 million in federal races.
- Big Tech firms such as Meta and Google are directing more than $20 million to state‑level contests, aiming to shape AI policy in their favor.
- Pro‑innovation groups like Leading the Future (backed by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI) spend heavily to defeat lawmakers who sponsor AI‑safety bills, while pro‑regulation coalitions such as Public First Action and Guardrails Alliance raise comparable sums to support candidates favoring oversight.
- The spending has turned previously low‑profile races—e.g., New York’s 12th congressional district primary—into national news, highlighting AI as a voter‑motivating issue.
- Both sides argue over the proper level of governance: industry‑aligned PACs push for a federal framework that pre‑empts state laws, whereas regulation‑focused groups defend state experimentation and call for meaningful oversight of powerful AI systems.
The Surge of AI‑Focused Money in Midterm Elections
The tug‑over artificial intelligence regulation has unleashed a flood of cash into the 2024 midterm cycle. According to tracking by Tech Influence Watch, a project of technology writer Molly White, AI‑focused political action committees have raised $107 million and spent $55.5 million in federal races so far. This influx mirrors the pattern seen with cryptocurrency a few years earlier, where competing super PACs poured money into elections to sway the legislative landscape. As one observer noted, “Like crypto before it, AI is the new technology battleground as pro‑innovation and pro‑safety groups compete to shape the makeup of the next Congress.” The money is not limited to Washington; state contests are also seeing significant investment, reflecting the broader struggle over who will write the rules governing AI.
State‑Level Spending and the Preemption Debate
While President Donald Trump has urged Congress to adopt a federal framework that would pre‑empt “cumbersome” state AI laws, states have been active regulators for the past three years. In response, Big Tech has directed more than $20 million to state‑level races, according to The Tech Oversight Project, which launched an AI super PAC ad library in June. The library has cataloged over 175 ads for federal and state candidates, most of which do not explicitly mention AI as a campaign issue. Sacha Haworth, the project’s executive director, warned that “Big Tech’s AI super PACs are spending a gargantuan amount of money on our elections because they want to write the rules in their favor.” The states most targeted include Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, South Dakota, and Texas—jurisdictions where legislative action on AI could set precedents for the rest of the nation.
Leading the Future: The Pro‑Innovation Juggernaut
At the forefront of the industry‑aligned effort is Leading the Future, a $140 million pro‑AI super PAC network whose key funders include venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI president Greg Brockman. The PAC mounted an $8 million campaign to defeat New York Assemblymember Alex Bores, a Democrat, after he sponsored the RAISE Act—an AI‑safety bill signed into law last December. Three other AI‑focused PACs contributed a combined nearly $19 million to support Bores, turning the crowded Democratic primary in New York’s 12th congressional district into national news. Bores finished a close second in the June primary and later told Pluribus News, “The result of the race was clearly to show that what was viewed as a minor or latent issue in politics is actually at the forefront.” Beyond New York, Leading the Future has endorsed 18 Republican state legislative candidates across Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah, and pledged $5 million to support U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds in Florida’s gubernatorial race. The organization’s spokesperson, Jesse Hunt, argued that AI policy should be handled at the federal level with a national framework that offers protections while fostering innovation, claiming it is “very difficult to maintain all of those things doing it on a state‑by‑state basis in piecemeal fashion.”
Public First Action: The Bipartisan Regulation Push
On the opposite side of the aisle stands Public First Action, a bipartisan 501(c)(4) led by former Congress members Brad Carson (D‑OK) and Chris Stewart (R‑UT). The group says it “strongly supports the work of state and local legislatures to address emerging AI issues and opposes federal efforts to freeze state progress without adequate federal safeguards.” In June, Public First Action announced it had raised $80 million, surpassing its initial $50 million goal, with Anthropic contributing $40 million and its CEO, Dario Amodei, adding another $1 million in May. Stewart framed the fight as non‑partisan: “This isn’t a partisan issue – it’s about whether we’ll have meaningful oversight of the most powerful technology ever created.” The organization’s Jobs and Democracy PAC spent $13 million backing Bores in his unsuccessful primary, while last month it pledged $15 million to bolster a dozen Republican members of Congress viewed as supportive of “AI security and accountability.” Public First has also run ads for Donalds in Florida’s governor’s race, citing his apparent opposition to federal preemption of state AI laws.
Guardrails Alliance: A Progressive Counterweight
In June, two Democratic operatives launched Guardrails Alliance to serve as a foil to Leading the Future. Backed by union members, AI‑safety researchers, progressives, and financial support from current and former OpenAI employees as well as John O’Farrell, a former general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, the new super PAC positions itself as championing the view that “The people who build AI want guardrails. The people who profit from it want immunity.” Shaunna Thomas, the PAC’s co‑founder, declared in a statement, “That tells you exactly who Leading the Future is fighting for.” Guardrails Alliance spent $285,000 supporting Bores in the New York congressional primary—a modest sum compared with the tens of millions poured in by its rivals—but it signals a growing organized effort to push for stricter oversight. Bores reflected on the broader significance of the contest, telling Pluribus News that AI, unlike crypto, is a “broad issue” that impacts virtually everyone and animates donors and voters alike, adding, “Americans want a say in the development of this technology.”
Implications for the Future of AI Governance
The unprecedented flow of AI‑related money into both federal and state elections underscores how deeply the technology has penetrated political strategy. While industry‑backed super PACs argue that a uniform federal approach will prevent a patchwork of conflicting state rules, regulation‑focused groups contend that state experimentation is essential to crafting nuanced safeguards that keep pace with rapid innovation. The outcomes of races in states like New York, Florida, and Texas will likely serve as early indicators of which vision gains traction in the next Congress. As the debate intensifies, voters and candidates alike are being forced to confront a fundamental question: Should the rules governing artificial intelligence be written primarily by Washington, or should laboratories of democracy in the states retain the authority to shape the technology’s trajectory? The answer, shaped by millions of dollars in campaign spending, will help determine whether AI advances under a banner of innovation unfettered by oversight, or under a framework designed to ensure accountability and public trust.