Pro-AI Super PAC Scales Back After New York Primary Backlash

A pro-AI super PAC that spent heavily to defeat a Democratic House candidate in New York is reconsidering its confrontational approach after the June primary drew intense scrutiny and failed to deliver the intended message to lawmakers.

Leading the Future poured more than $8 million into opposing Alex Bores, a New York assemblymember who authored the state's AI safety law. But Bores finished a close second in the five-candidate race, and the winner—Assemblymember Micah Lasher—also supports AI regulations and a data center moratorium. The super PAC is now unlikely to launch similar negative campaigns against other candidates this year, according to a person familiar with its strategy who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Why it matters

The New York race was supposed to demonstrate Silicon Valley's ability to punish AI critics, following the cryptocurrency industry's successful 2024 electoral strategy. Instead, it may signal that aggressive spending against regulation advocates can backfire, potentially emboldening other candidates to take stronger stances on AI policy without fear of industry retaliation.

A split within Silicon Valley

The primary quickly became a proxy battle between AI industry rivals OpenAI and Anthropic. Leading the Future, backed by at least $75 million from OpenAI President Greg Brockman and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, faced off against super PACs linked to Anthropic that spent $12 million supporting Bores.

Anthropic executives split from OpenAI in 2021 over concerns about reckless AI development, and the two companies have since clashed over safety regulations. The New York race brought that conflict into electoral politics, with both sides spending heavily on opposite sides of the contest.

Lasher, who won with support from former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, addressed both camps in his victory speech: "I won't be taking my cues from either of you when it comes to protecting our kids, our jobs and our families."

Strategic questions for the AI lobby

Regulation advocates argue that Leading the Future inadvertently elevated AI safety as a political issue while failing to achieve its core objective. Nathan Calvin, general counsel at pro-regulation group Encode AI, said the super PAC "went into this race as a genuinely frightening force" but "left the race not a particularly imposing force that politicians don't seem particularly afraid of."

Brad Carson, co-lead of Public First (which coordinated pro-Bores spending), called the outcome "a tactical defeat" for his network but "a strategic victory" for the broader AI safety movement. He said the race demonstrated the fundraising strength of regulation advocates and may have pressured OpenAI to distance itself from Leading the Future's aggressive tactics.

Adam Kovacevich, CEO of tech industry group Chamber of Progress, noted that targeting Bores was unusual for Leading the Future, which typically supports pro-AI incumbents rather than attacking challengers. He suggested the group went after Bores because he "just wouldn't engage" with AI companies seeking to shape the RAISE Act, though Bores' campaign disputed that characterization.

Other pro-regulation candidates, including Colorado Democratic Representative Manny Rutinel and California state Senator Scott Wiener, have not faced similar opposition from Leading the Future despite running on platforms that include AI safety measures.

Leading the Future declined to comment on whether it views the New York outcome as reflecting public opinion on AI or whether it plans similar interventions in other competitive races. In a statement, the group backed "clear guardrails" on AI and pledged "thoughtful, substantive engagement with policymakers."

These details were first reported by Brendan Bordelon for POLITICO.