- Competing AI-backed PACs spent over $20 million in a single New York congressional primary: OpenAI and Andreessen Horowitz-linked Leading the Future spent more than $8.1 million against Alex Bores, while Anthropic-funded Public First Action spent $10-11 million to support him.
- The spending exposed a concrete split in AI industry strategy: one camp is pushing for a single federal framework to pre-empt state-level rules, while the other is backing stricter safety mandates at both state and federal level, with real money now attached to both positions.
- The industry’s investment did not stop AI regulation from advancing: primary winner Micah Lasher co-sponsored New York’s RAISE Act and stated publicly he would not be influenced by industry interest groups, leaving the regulatory push intact regardless of the outcome.
More than $20 million from competing AI industry groups landed in a single Manhattan congressional primary, making New York’s 12th District one of the most expensive House races in recent memory and the clearest sign yet that AI companies are prepared to spend heavily to shape the politicians who will regulate them.
New York’s Primary: An AI Industry Battleground
The Democratic primary for New York’s 12th Congressional District became the AI industry’s most expensive electoral intervention to date. The race centred on state Assemblymember Alex Bores, a former Palantir employee with a master’s degree in computer science who campaigned on a platform of federal AI regulation, including a proposed AI Dividend program for workers displaced by automation. That position made him a direct target for segments of the industry opposed to tighter oversight, and a cause worth funding for those who favour it.
Two AI Titans, Competing Agendas
The NY-12 spending revealed a genuine ideological split within the AI industry, not just a difference in tone. Leading the Future, a PAC backed by OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman and venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, spent more than $8.1 million opposing Bores. The group’s position is that a single federal framework should govern AI development, and that a patchwork of state-level rules would slow innovation and weaken the US position in the global AI race.
On the other side, Public First Action, which received a $20 million contribution from Anthropic, spent $10-11 million supporting Bores. Anthropic has publicly positioned itself as a safety-first developer and supports stricter rules covering both AI outputs and underlying system design. The direct collision of two well-funded super PACs in a single House primary was unusual by any measure, and it illustrated how seriously both camps view the current regulatory window.
The RAISE Act and Bores’ Profile
Bores’s prominence in the AI regulation debate traced directly to his co-sponsorship of New York’s Responsible AI Safety and Education Act, known as the RAISE Act, enacted in December 2025. The legislation requires major AI developers to publish public safety plans and report safety incidents, placing it alongside California’s Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act as one of the more substantive state-level AI governance efforts to date.
Leading the Future announced its intention to target Bores before the bill was even signed, a decision his campaign argued was designed to warn other legislators away from similar legislation. The strategy backfired in one respect: the aggressive opposition turned a relatively unknown state assemblymember into a nationally recognised figure in the AI policy debate. Whether that was a net loss for the anti-regulation camp is a question the industry is now working through.
Millions Poured into Messaging and Ads
Total AI-backed spending in the race reached an estimated $29 million across pro- and anti-Bores messaging, according to reports. Much of it funded advertisements, mailers and text campaigns, some of which employed misleading framing. Ads opposing Bores, often placed by groups with names like “Jobs and Democracy” or “American Mission,” attacked his AI policy positions and questioned his record at Palantir. PACs supporting Bores ran counter-campaigns, including one that at one point mimicked the visual format of a genuine New York Daily News page. The total spend reportedly accounted for more than half of all AI-focused super PAC expenditures nationally at the time.
The Outcome and Enduring Regulatory Push
Bores lost the primary, placing second to Micah Lasher by four points. Lasher, a veteran of New York politics endorsed by the retiring Congressman Jerry Nadler, secured the nomination. What the result did not deliver was a clear victory for the anti-regulation camp. Lasher also co-sponsored the RAISE Act and stated publicly that he would not be swayed by industry interest groups. His win leaves the regulatory push in the district intact.
The NY-12 outcome is instructive for what it shows about the limits of electoral spending as a policy tool. Industry money can raise the cost of holding a pro-regulation position, and it can end particular careers. What it could not do here was remove AI oversight from the political agenda entirely. The appetite for some form of AI governance, across both parties at the state level, appears durable enough to survive individual races. How that plays out in Congress, where federal pre-emption of state rules remains a live question, will depend on whether the industry’s lobbying infrastructure proves as effective in Washington as its super PAC spending was in Manhattan. For more coverage of AI policy and regulation, visit our AI Policy & Regulation section.
