Political action committees and advocacy groups representing both sides of the burgeoning artificial intelligence industry poured millions of dollars into Tuesday’s midterm elections, attempting to shape the trajectory of future federal and state AI regulation. However, that heavy financial investment produced decidedly mixed results at the ballot box, with several of the most heavily backed candidates ultimately losing their races amid a broader political wave.
On the industry side, two prominent AI-focused political action committees—American Mission and Building the Future—collectively funneled $4.8 million into backing South Carolina Senate candidate Darline Graham. Despite the substantial financial backing, Graham lost her race. American Mission operates as the Republican spending arm of Leading the Future (LTF), a broader political advocacy group supported by prominent figures, including OpenAI president Greg Brockman and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
American Mission’s financial footprint extended beyond South Carolina, deploying more than $500,000 apiece to support Republican House candidates Aaron Flint in Montana and Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina. Both candidates were unsuccessful in their respective bids. Conversely, LTF’s Democratic spending arm, Think Big, experienced better fortunes by backing Florida Representative Jared Moskowitz, who successfully secured his reelection.
Organizations advocating for stronger AI safeguards encountered a similarly bifurcated night. Public First, a group backed by AI firm Anthropic, supported several Republican candidates who ultimately lost through its affiliated political action committee, though it enjoyed greater success when backing Democratic contenders. Furthermore, Public First contributed $3 million to a PAC supporting California state Senator Scott Wiener, who held a lead in his race at the time of publication.
Meanwhile, the Guardrails Alliance, an organization that has actively sought to make accepting campaign contributions from AI companies a political liability, focused its resources on challenging industry-backed candidates. The group spent more than $1 million apiece opposing two candidates who ultimately lost: California Representative Jimmy Gomez and Montana’s Aaron Flint. Additionally, the Guardrails Alliance invested $300,000 to support Angela Gonzales-Torres, who successfully defeated Gomez.
Discerning the precise impact of AI-related political spending from the broader political trends of Tuesday’s elections remains a complex challenge. A powerful Democratic wave swept through many of the contested races. Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who reportedly poured half a billion dollars into supporting Republican candidates during the midterms, also witnessed many of his endorsed candidates fall short. LTF similarly found itself backing candidates it believed possessed strong winning prospects, only to watch them fall to Democratic opponents.
For Leading the Future, however, the general election was never the primary strategic focus. Ahead of Election Day, representatives from LTF indicated to TechCrunch that they view primary elections—the internal contests used by each political party to choose its nominees—as a far more effective use of their financial resources. Spending during the primary stage allows political groups to build essential name recognition early and help shape policy agendas before general election dynamics take over.
LTF demonstrated this strategy by spending $27.38 million during the primary season alone. This total included an $8 million expenditure dedicated exclusively to opposing New York Assembly member Alex Bores, who ultimately lost his congressional bid back in June. When deciding whether to enter a general election contest, LTF evaluates several key factors, including the competitiveness of the race, whether targeted spending can realistically alter the outcome, and whether preserving financial capital for future election cycles is the prudent choice.
Charlie Blaettler, the political director of the Guardrails Alliance, offered a different perspective on why LTF and other industry-aligned groups chose to spend comparatively modest sums during the general election phase.
"They don’t want their money to become an issue in these elections," Blaettler said. He pointed to the Michigan Senate primary election as a cautionary tale, noting that a pro-Israel lobbying group called AIPAC spent close to $30 million backing Democratic candidate Haley Stevens against Abdul El-Sayed. Stevens ultimately conceded that primary to El-Sayed, who went on to secure the Senate seat.
"AIPAC became the story in that race," Blaettler explained. "We know people hate AI billionaires. They hate the people running these companies. They’re very distrustful and disgusted by the political spending and lobbying that the tech industry does. If they spend in a competitive race, they would just become an enormous liability for their candidates."
At the heart of the ongoing political struggle between opposing PACs—whether pro-industry or pro-regulation—is a fundamental legislative disagreement. The core debate centers on whether Congress should establish a comprehensive national AI regulatory framework that overrides state laws, or whether individual states should maintain their authority to impose their own safety guardrails and restrictions.
Neither side appears willing to back down following the midterms. Leading the Future, which strongly advocates for a unified national AI framework, confirmed its
intention to continue spending heavily in the upcoming 2028 elections. At the same time, the Guardrails Alliance pledged to maintain its mission of opposing candidates who accept financial support from the AI industry.
Blaettler noted a distinct tactical difference in how the opposing sides approach campaign advertising. While LTF’s advertisements rarely mention artificial intelligence, choosing instead to focus on popular local and national issues favored by individual candidates, Guardrails Alliance ads explicitly highlight which candidates are accepting money from the AI industry.
"Our goal is to make AI money politically toxic," Blaettler said.
