A pro-AI super PAC backed by tech executives is sitting on $31.5 million heading into the midterm elections, vastly outpacing groups pushing for stronger AI safety regulations and worker protections. The spending gap reveals a stark imbalance in political power as the nation grapples with how to govern artificial intelligence—one of the most consequential technologies of our time.
Leading the Future, the industry-backed super PAC, closed out this quarter after transferring $20 million to affiliated groups. It disbursed $10 million each to Think Big PAC and American Mission PAC, positioning itself to deploy resources aggressively before November. The group's spokesperson Jesse Hunt said the money would allow them to "continue building a deep bench of pro-innovation champions"—a euphemism for candidates who favor minimal regulation and rapid AI development.
The Money Divide
The contrast with safety-focused groups is striking. Guardrails Alliance, a newly launched super PAC backed by tech workers and founded by Democratic organizers, reported nearly $400,000 cash on hand. The group advocates for robust AI safety regulations, workers' rights, and what it describes as fighting AI billionaire efforts to buy elections. Public First PAC, a bipartisan group focused on AI safety, ended the quarter with roughly $494,000.
Meanwhile, Leading the Future's $31 million war chest dwarfs these efforts. Axios reported that groups focused on AI safety and transparency are far behind industry fundraising as the midterms approach. The disparity matters because it shapes which candidates get funding, which messages dominate the airwaves, and ultimately which policy direction Congress pursues.
Anthropicand other major AI companies have funneled significant resources into the safety-focused super PACs, but the sums pale against the industry's pro-deregulation spending. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei donated $1 million to Public First. Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI employees collectively contributed more than $2 million to the super PAC during the quarter. Public First Action, the nonprofit affiliated with the safety-focused PACs, received $20 million from Anthropic earlier this year.
Yet even this substantial commitment doesn't match the firepower of Leading the Future. Jobs and Democracy PAC, which backs Democrats and receives support from safety-focused groups, ended the quarter with about $1.3 million cash on hand. The super PAC spent heavily supporting New York pro-AI safety candidate Alex Bores, who lost to fellow Democrat Micah Lasher—a cautionary tale about the limits of safety-focused spending.
Who Shapes the Rules
At an Axios House D.C. event three days ago, the political dimensions of AI regulation came into sharp relief. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the U.S. won't let Europe become "the arbiter" of regulating American tech companies. The comment underscores a central debate: Will the U.S. adopt the precautionary approach Europe has taken with AI regulation, or will it prioritize speed and competitiveness over safeguards?
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) raised concerns about the broader policy environment, criticizing President Trump's diplomatic approach as relying on "basically real estate negotiators." His comments suggest anxiety among some Democrats about whether the administration's transactional style extends to complex technological governance.
Ford Motor Company executive chair Bill Ford highlighted another regulatory gap. He said the U.S. has critical minerals needed for AI infrastructure and advanced manufacturing, but lacks the proper regulation to develop them. "Having a planning horizon that we can count on makes a huge difference, because our lead times are longer than political lead times," Ford said. His comment reveals how industry depends on stable, predictable policy—something that requires democratic deliberation, not just market forces.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission chair Michael Selig said the CFTC will defend its authority over prediction markets "all the way up to the Supreme Court" if necessary. Tarek Mansour, co-founder and CEO of Kalshi, countered that prediction markets are "here to stay" because many people feel traditional financial systems are "rigged against them." The exchange illustrates how AI-adjacent technologies are reshaping financial regulation—and how those with resources can shape the outcome.
The Deployment Problem
Accenture Federal Services CEO Ron Ash warned of a different risk: "My biggest concern is that we win this race for developing the best AI technology and we lose the race to deploy it." His concern suggests that even industry leaders recognize government and institutional capacity matter. You can't deploy transformative technology without functioning public institutions, trained workforces, and regulatory frameworks that work.
NYSE Group president Lynn Martin predicted AI's biggest economic opportunities will come from energy and infrastructure, with both sectors positioned for "outsized returns for a longer period of time." Southern Company chair, president and CEO Chris Womack said the U.S. needs to commit to building 10 new nuclear plants to meet growing energy demand. These infrastructure investments require public coordination and long-term planning—the opposite of what super PAC spending typically encourages.
Why This Matters:
The $31 million advantage held by pro-deregulation forces shapes not just which candidates win elections, but which policy frameworks govern AI development. When industry groups vastly outspend safety advocates and worker-focused organizations, the resulting regulations tend to reflect industry preferences—lighter oversight, faster deployment timelines, fewer worker protections. This creates a structural imbalance in democratic deliberation. The stakes extend beyond abstract principle: AI systems increasingly determine who gets hired, approved for loans, or flagged by law enforcement. Without robust public input and safety-focused regulation, those systems will reflect the values and interests of those who built them. The fundraising gap suggests the midterms will be shaped more by tech executives' vision of rapid, lightly regulated AI development than by the concerns of workers, communities, and citizens who'll live with the consequences.