AI Donors Spend Millions to Shape Who Sets the Rules

Political groups seeking faster artificial intelligence development and lighter regulation spent about $8 million in general-election congressional races, while groups supporting stronger safeguards spent about $6.9 million, according to a CNBC analysis of Federal Election Commission filings through Oct. 20. Millions in campaign spending are fueling the fight over who sets the rules.

Who Gets the Driver’s Seat

Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the nonpartisan Center for Political Accountability and a former chief investigator for the Senate banking committee, said, “Everyone supports some form of regulation. It's just a debate about how much.” He added, “Money is flowing in all directions to be in the driver's seat of what happens.”

CNBC counted independent expenditures reported by federal committees aligned with each camp. The analysis excluded state races and nonprofit advocacy spending, so it captures only part of the political money surrounding AI.

Leading the Future is among the groups favoring faster development and opposing a patchwork of state regulations. It launched in August 2025 with more than $100 million in commitments from technology figures including Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI President Greg Brockman and his wife, Anna, and Perplexity and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale. Josh Vlasto, who worked for Fairshake in the previous election cycle, co-led the network.

Leading the Future created Democratic PAC Think Big and Republican PAC American Mission to support candidates aligned with its priorities. In Florida's 25th Congressional District, Think Big spent $310,000 supporting Democrat Jared Moskowitz. Defending Our Values spent almost $857,000 backing Republican Scott Singer and another $740,000 trying to keep one of Singer's primary opponents from winning. Florida redrew its congressional map ahead of the 2026 election, changing Moskowitz's district.

The Money Has a Playbook

AI groups looked to cryptocurrency campaign spending for a model. Fairshake and affiliated pro-crypto super PACs, backed by Coinbase, Ripple and Andreessen Horowitz, spent more than $130 million in the 2024 election cycle. Candidates they supported won 53 of 58 races, a 91% success rate, according to CoinDesk.

Sacha Haworth, founder and executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, a nonprofit watchdog advocating stronger regulation of Big Tech and AI, said, “The AI industry announced last year that they were going to rerun the crypto industry playbook by coming in swinging with oodles of money in order to bully lawmakers into submission.” In March, American Mission-backed candidates Jessica Steinmann and Chris Gober in Texas and Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina won their Republican contests after the group spent more than $500,000 supporting each, according to FEC filings.

The fight came into sharp view in the New York 12th District Democratic primary. Think Big spent $8.3 million trying to defeat state Assemblymember Alex Bores, author of major state AI safety legislation. The Anthropic-backed Jobs and Democracy PAC spent about $15 million supporting Bores, and allied safety groups spent millions more. Bores lost to Micah Lasher, 39% to 35%, a tactical victory for Think Big.

Think Big and Jobs and Democracy together spent $23.3 million, about 40% of the two camps' primary spending nationwide, CNBC said. Haworth said the spending had helped spur a backlash. She warned that opposition spending against safety-first candidates could prompt a counterattack within the industry.

Public Concerns, Private Campaigns

Anthropic committed $20 million to Public First Action in February and another $20 million in July. Anthropic said its money was restricted to policy and public education and couldn't fund candidate elections. Separately funded super PACs connected to Public First Action spent millions advancing similar priorities.

The groups directed much of their spending to primaries: about 74% of the roughly $78.5 million spent on federal candidates went to primary races, CNBC's analysis found. Leading the Future's network reported roughly $26 million in primary independent expenditures and about $8 million in general-election races. Safeguards-focused groups reported about $32.1 million in primary spending and $6.9 million in general-election contests. The groups reported roughly $5.5 million more in runoff and special-election spending.

CNBC's voter survey showed a gap between campaign priorities and public concerns. Fifty-two percent of registered voters thought companies should pause development of advanced AI until Congress passes regulations, compared with 32% who favored moving ahead. Sixty-three percent said they would oppose an AI data center within 10 miles of their home.

Greg Brockman and Anna Brockman gave $25 million to Leading the Future. OpenAI employees objected to the group's tactics, and the company's chief strategy officer acknowledged internally that it was taking “reputational hits,” CNBC reported, citing Semafor. The Brockmans later abandoned plans to contribute another $25 million, according to The New York Times. Meta-funded political groups returned $25 million over the summer, including $22 million from the AI-promoting American Technology Excellence Project and $3 million from its California operation.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Politico earlier in October, “Something's clearly not working. I don't think spending money on politics is what's going to make people feel better about it.”