The artificial intelligence industry was poised to act as a kingmaker in the midterm elections.
asserted
industry → poise → elections
Super PAC networks bankrolled with millions of dollars from Anthropic and OpenAI executives spent heavily in competitive primaries earlier this year, including a high-profile race in New York City.
asserted
networks → bankroll → City
They were touted as the looming successor to another single-issue group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, as AIPAC moved its spending underground.
asserted
AIPAC → tout → spending
Yet as public outrage over data centers and AI’s threat to jobs soared, artificial intelligence super PACs dramatically throttled back spending on congressional races compared to the primaries.
asserted
PACs → soar → primaries
The biggest AI super PAC network has spent only modestly ahead of next week’s general election — and mostly in safe seats.
asserted
network → spend → seats
An Intercept analysis of AI spending in the 2026 midterms, based on Federal Election Commission records and independent race ratings, shows that only 5 percent of their direct expenditures have gone to contested general election races.
asserted
percent → base → races
The industry’s avoidance of the contested races that could determine control of the next Congress suggest that the PACs have realized how the public has soured on the tech, campaign finance and industry observers told The Intercept.
uncertain
observers → contest → Intercept
“Essentially these companies underestimated how much the public despises the data center buildout, and the inescapability of AI systems that no one asked for that say they will automate jobs and maybe kill us all,” said Rick Claypool, a research director for the president’s office at Public Citizen, a nonprofit campaign finance watchdog.
asserted
Claypool → underestimate → Citizen
Although there is still time for a last-minute flurry of spending, the story of AI’s role in the 2026 midterm elections may turn out to be the story of a single race — a primary in New York — that forced the industry to step away from the limelight.
uncertain
that → be → limelight
Claypool’s group released an analysis earlier this year of “corporate supremacist” super PACs, a new breed of campaign committees modeled on a crypto super PAC called Fairshake that spent tens of millions on the 2024 elections.
asserted
that → release → elections
The model was to amass a massive war chest and use it to punish candidates who opposed the company’s preferred government regulations, while throwing cash at allies or potential allies from both parties.
asserted
who → amass → parties
The first big AI super PAC to launch in August 2025 was Leading the Future, which was bankrolled by the president of OpenAI and its investors.
asserted
which → launch → OpenAI
A rival super PAC network, Public First, launched months later with the goal of countering Leading the Future’s influence.
asserted
network → launch → influence
Its donors include Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who gave $1 million.
asserted
who → include → million
Anthropic has also given a nonprofit associated with Public First millions of dollars, while stipulating that the money cannot be used on elections.
asserted
money → give → elections
Public First says that it supports tighter regulations than its rival.
asserted
it → say → rival
The two networks plowed $50.7 million into the primaries, campaign finance records show.
asserted
records → plow → primaries
Most of that money was spent on primary races where the outcome was in doubt, driven by an eye-popping $21.3 million the networks spent on supporting or opposing a single congressional candidate, Alex Bores, in the Democratic primary for New York’s 12th Congressional District.
asserted
networks → spend → District
Bores, a New York State Assembly member, attracted the ire of those in the industry who favor a laissez-faire approach by authoring an AI regulation bill in the state legislature.
asserted
who → attract → legislature
Leading the Future succeeded in defeating Bores, who lost to his State Assembly colleague Micah Lasher in June.
asserted
who → lead → June
But the group drew intense blowback in the process.
asserted
group → draw → process
Many observers suggested Leading the Future’s spending had boosted Bores rather than hurt him, because it gave him a chance to position himself as a foe of the AI industry — while also benefiting from a PAC aligned with the Public First network.
uncertain
it → suggest → network
“Down to the wire, they were sweating,” Bores told The Intercept, referring to Leading the Future.
asserted
Bores → sweat → Leading
“I think people who have been in politics for a while will realize that their spending really served to elevate the issue of AI.”
asserted
spending → think → AI
Leading the Future did not respond to a request for comment.
asserted
Future → respond → comment
After wading into contested primary elections, the two leading AI super PAC networks have held back from spending on competitive general elections — even though they have plenty of money in the bank.
Until a few days ago, Public First had spent nothing on general election races.
asserted
First → wad → races
Leading the Future has spent only $7.4 million on general election races as of October 26, according to the FEC data, despite having $34 million in cash on hand across its network as of its most recent report.
uncertain
Future → spend → report
Only 31 percent of that total has gone toward competitive races, as measured by the independent analytics website FiftyPlusOne.
asserted
percent → go → website
The only reason Leading the Future has spent money on competitive general election races at all is because it’s backing U.S. Sen. Darline Graham, R-S.C., who filled the seat of her late brother Lindsey Graham and is now facing an unexpectedly fierce challenge from a Democrat to win a full term in ruby-red South Carolina.
asserted
who → spend → Carolina
“They are not going to have an impact on the balance of power in Congress,” said Shaunna Thomas, one of the founders of Guardrails Alliance, another new super PAC set up to counter Leading the Future’s influence.
asserted
Thomas → go → influence
“They are spending money on candidates who they think will protect their ability to control if and how they are regulated.”
asserted
they → spend → ability
Public First has only recently started spending a relatively small sum on a handful of general election races.
asserted
First → start → races
The spending had amounted to $1.1 million as of the morning of October 26, according to processed FEC data.
uncertain
spending → amount → data
Asked for comment on how its strategy has changed since the primaries, a Public First spokesperson said that it was still trying to support “strong advocates for AI regulation.”
asserted
it → ask → regulation
“Public First was founded as a counterweight to Leading the Future, and that fight looks very different today.
asserted
fight → found → Future
Leading the Future is going dark.
asserted
Future → go → ?
Its biggest backers are walking away,” said Anthony Rivera-Rodriguez, the spokesperson.
asserted
Rodriguez → walk → ?
Into that gap have stepped new groups pushing for tougher AI regulation such as the Guardrails Alliance, which bills itself as a grassroots alternative to corporate-backed super PACs.
asserted
which → step → PACs
It is funded in large part by Silicon Valley tech workers but has taken a more aggressive stance against “tech oligarchs.”
asserted
It → fund → oligarchs
Guardrails has spent about $2 million thus far and reported having $1.2 million on hand as of October 14.
asserted
Guardrails → spend → October
…and 39 more, not listed.
The Aporia
