The increasingly powerful AI lobby poured millions of dollars into a campaign against a congressional candidate running in the Democratic primaries in New York. On Tuesday, they got what they paid for.
Outside groups spent more than $40 million on the race to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler’s seat in the 12th congressional district in Manhattan. Among the eight candidates running, most of that money was spent on assemblymember Alex Bores, a divisive figure for Silicon Valley who has become the poster child for tougher AI regulation.
Bores lost the Democratic primary to fellow assemblymember Micah Lasher, with whom it seemed like he was in a head-to-head race in prior polls.
Bores ran on the platform of keeping big tech accountable by gunning for federal-level AI regulation, including through an AI Dividend program that would pay Americans who fall victim to AI-driven job displacement. What first put him on the tech industry’s radar was the RAISE Act, a landmark AI safety bill he sponsored in the New York State Assembly that would require leading AI companies to develop, publish, and adhere to formal safety protocols.
Shortly after he announced his candidacy, Bores found himself at the center of attacks from Leading the Future, a super PAC backed by the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI president Greg Brockman, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, and AI search engine company Perplexity. Leading the Future spent $8 million to make sure Bores did not win the primaries.
But for all in the tech world that fought against Bores’ candidacy, there was also sizable support for him. A combination of super PACs and AI safety groups spent roughly $20 million to support Bores, with the bulk of that money coming from an organization backed by Anthropic. Other major PACs that supported Bores were Dream NYC, backed by Anthropic AI safety researcher Daniel Ziegler, and You Can Push Back, backed by crypto billionaire Chris Larsen.
Suddenly, the race was at the epicenter of an industry-wide civil war. On one side, supporters of stricter federal AI regulation claimed the industry was underestimating or underselling the dangers of underregulated AI development in pursuit of wider profit margins. On the other side, critics claimed strict regulation would hinder innovation, causing the U.S. to lose a global AI race to China, while labeling the opposing view as fearmongering that conceals an attempt at regulatory capture.
Public sentiment against AI and the unprecedented data center buildout has been souring rapidly over the past year as the negative impacts of the technology, from AI psychosis to the strain AI data centers put on the power grid, gain more recognition. The NY-12 race was widely viewed as the first major political litmus test on AI.
“Though we’ve come up short tonight, the example set here was not the one AI oligarchs intended,” Bores said in a statement following the defeat. “They set out to make people afraid to stand up to them. Instead, they learned just how ready people are to push back.”
Bores’s loss does not necessarily mean that more support for stricter federal AI regulation in Congress is off the table. Though Leading the Future campaigned against Bores, it did not explicitly endorse any other candidate in the race. The candidate who did end up winning the primary and is heavily favored to win the seat in November, New York state assemblymember Micah Lasher, was also a co-sponsor of Bores’ RAISE Act, the same bill that disturbed the AI industry and brought Bores into the national spotlight.
“I have some news for the two big AI companies that have taken such an unusual interest in who won this congressional seat,” Lasher said following his win last night. “I won’t be taking my cues from either of you when it comes to protecting our kids, our jobs, and our environment.”
The NY-12 race underscores the deepening divide within the tech industry over AI governance. On one side, companies like OpenAI and venture capital firms such as Andreessen Horowitz argue that excessive regulation could stifle innovation and cede competitive advantage to countries like China. They point to the rapid pace of AI development in labs abroad and warn that safety measures must be carefully calibrated to avoid hampering progress. Conversely, AI safety advocates, including many researchers from Anthropic and other organizations, contend that unchecked AI development poses existential risks, from widespread job displacement to the creation of uncontrollable autonomous systems. This rift has turned what might have been a local congressional race into a national stage for debating the future of AI policy in the United States.
The RAISE Act, officially titled the Responsible AI Safety and Ethics Act, was introduced in the New York State Assembly in early 2025. It mandates that any company developing advanced AI models—defined as systems with computational power exceeding 10^26 floating-point operations—must submit a safety plan to a newly created state AI Safety Board. The plan must include measures for preventing misuse, such as the generation of harmful content or the facilitation of cyberattacks, and must detail protocols for shutdown in case of unintended behavior. The bill also requires independent audits of these safety plans every six months, with penalties for noncompliance reaching up to 10% of a company’s annual revenue. Bores championed the bill as a necessary step to protect New Yorkers and set a precedent for federal action. The bill passed the Assembly in early 2026 but has stalled in the state Senate, partly due to opposition from tech industry lobbyists.
The involvement of super PACs in the NY-12 race highlights the growing political clout of the AI sector. Leading the Future, founded in 2024, has already amassed a war chest of over $30 million, with contributions from major figures in venture capital and AI development. Its mission statement declares a commitment to “electing leaders who understand the transformative potential of AI and will resist harmful regulations that could slow progress.” The PAC has vowed to target other candidates across the country who support strict AI regulation. Meanwhile, safety-focused groups like Dream PAC have formed with the explicit goal of countering such efforts. These groups argue that the public deserves a voice in decisions about technologies that will profoundly affect daily life.
Beyond the political maneuvering, the NY-12 scenario reflects broader societal anxieties about AI. Recent incidents of AI-generated deepfakes spreading misinformation, autonomous vehicles causing accidents, and large language models producing biased or dangerous outputs have fueled public concern. A Gallup poll from May 2026 found that 62% of Americans believe AI development is moving too fast and that government regulation is necessary to protect citizens. However, only 38% trust Congress to craft effective AI legislation, a sentiment that provides fertile ground for both industry lobbyists and grassroots advocacy groups to influence the outcome.
Looking ahead, the defeat of Bores may embolden the anti-regulation wing of the AI industry, but it does not guarantee that AI regulation will be abandoned. Lasher, the winner, has indicated he will continue to support the RAISE Act and similar measures, though perhaps with amendments that industry groups find more palatable. The incoming representative will face immediate pressure from both sides: from tech companies seeking to delay or weaken federal oversight, and from safety advocates demanding swift action before more harm occurs. The outcome of the general election in November, where Lasher is heavily favored against a Republican opponent in the deep-blue district, will determine whether New York’s 12th becomes a battleground for AI policy for years to come.
In the meantime, the massive spending in this race signals that AI has become a central issue in American politics, with both sides willing to invest heavily to shape its trajectory. Bores’ campaign, though unsuccessful, attracted unprecedented support from safety advocates, demonstrating that there is a ready constituency for stronger regulation. The civil war within the tech industry is far from over, and the next major test may come soon, as other congressional races across the country are likely to see similar interventions by both pro- and anti-regulation PACs.
Source: Gizmodo News