US politics / Technology · Public record
AI industry PACs spent millions on 2026 midterms with mixed results
Political action committees aligned with and against the AI industry collectively spent millions attempting to influence the 2026 midterm elections, with some of the most heavily backed candidates losing their races. The outcome has not deterred either side from planning further spending in future election cycles.
What the PACs spent and which candidates lost
Two AI industry political action committees, American Mission and Building the Future, together spent 4.8 million dollars supporting South Carolina Senate candidate Darline Graham, who lost. American Mission also spent more than 500,000 dollars each backing Republican House candidates Aaron Flint in Montana and Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina, both of whom lost their races.
American Mission is the Republican spending arm of Leading the Future, a political group backed by OpenAI president Greg Brockman and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. The Democratic spending arm of Leading the Future, Think Big, backed Florida Representative Jared Moskowitz, who won reelection.
Groups advocating for stronger AI safeguards also saw mixed outcomes. Public First, which is backed by Anthropic, supported several Republicans who lost through its affiliated PAC but had more success backing Democratic candidates. Public First contributed 3 million dollars to a PAC supporting California state Senator Scott Wiener, who was leading his race at the time of publication.
Guardrails Alliance, a group seeking to make taking money from AI companies a political liability, spent more than 1 million dollars each opposing two candidates who lost: California Representative Jimmy Gomez and Montana candidate Aaron Flint. The group also spent 300,000 dollars supporting Angela Gonzales-Torres, who defeated Gomez.
Why AI groups focused on primaries over general elections
Leading the Future spent 27.38 million dollars in primary elections, including 8 million dollars opposing New York Assembly member Alex Bores, who lost his congressional bid in June. The group told TechCrunch that it considers primaries a more effective use of money because spending there can build name recognition and help candidates set up AI policy agendas.
When deciding whether to enter a general election race, Leading the Future assesses how competitive the race is, whether spending could make a difference, and whether it should keep its powder dry for future elections. Charlie Blaettler, political director of Guardrails Alliance, offered a different explanation for why Leading the Future spent comparatively little in the general election.
Blaettler said the group does not want its money to become an issue in elections. He pointed to the Michigan Senate primary election, in which a pro-Israel lobbying group called AIPAC spent close to 30 million dollars backing Democratic candidate Haley Stevens against Abdul El-Sayed. Stevens conceded the primary to El-Sayed, who went on to win the Senate seat, and AIPAC became the story in that race, according to Blaettler.
Blaettler said people are very distrustful and disgusted by the political spending and lobbying that the tech industry does. He said that if AI industry groups spend in a competitive race, they would become an enormous liability for their candidates.
Who is affected and what they want from Congress
The main fight among AI-focused political action committees, whether they are pro-industry or pro-regulation, is whether Congress should establish a national AI framework that overrides state laws or whether states will maintain their own ability to impose safeguards. Leading the Future favors a single national AI framework.
Leading the Future is backed by OpenAI president Greg Brockman and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. Public First is backed by Anthropic. Guardrails Alliance runs ads specifically about who is taking money from the AI industry, while Leading the Future's ads rarely touch on AI and instead focus on popular issues for each candidate, according to Blaettler.
Elon Musk reportedly poured half a billion dollars into supporting Republicans in the midterms and also saw many of his candidates lose. Leading the Future also backed some candidates it believed were likely to win, only to see them lose to Democrats. It is difficult to separate the impact of AI-related spending from the broader Democratic wave that swept the elections, according to the source.
What to watch
- Whether Leading the Future or Guardrails Alliance spend heavily in competitive 2028 general election races, which would test theories about whether AI industry money becomes a liability for candidates
- Whether Congress introduces legislation in the next session establishing a national AI framework that would override state laws, the central policy dispute between the groups
- Whether candidates in 2028 primaries who receive significant AI industry backing face attack ads highlighting that funding, following the AIPAC precedent in Michigan
What we don't know yet
- How much Guardrails Alliance spent in total across all races in the 2026 midterms
- Which specific candidates Public First backed through its affiliated PAC and how much it spent on each
- Whether any of the AI-focused PACs plan to adjust their spending strategies or messaging based on the 2026 results